U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–343 PDF 2012

AMERICAN JOBS NOW: A LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

ON H.R. 3548, THE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY 

ACCESS ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 25, FEBRUARY 3, 2012 

Serial No. 112–108 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JANUARY 25, 2012 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 15 

WITNESSES

Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs .................................................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 67 

Jeff C. Wright, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 3548, A Bill to facilitate United States access to North American oil 

resources, and for other purposes ....................................................................... 5 

Application for Intervenor Status, dated May 19, 2009, Hearing Order No. 

OH–1–2009, of the National Energy Board, Canada, submitted by Mr. 

Waxman ................................................................................................................ 40 

Media notes on Keystone XL Pipeline, dated March 15, 2011, and April 

15, 2011, Department of State, submitted by Mr. Terry .................................. 55 

FEBRUARY 3, 2012 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 93 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 96 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 96 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 97 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 98 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 99 

Page

IV 

WITNESSES

Margaret Gaffney-Smith, Chief, Regulatory Program, Army Corps of Engineers ...................................................................................................................... 101

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Steven M. Anderson, Brigadier General (Retired), United States Army ............ 142 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 145 

Randall F. Thompson, Nebraska rancher .............................................................. 147 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 149 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Memo, dated June 22, 2011, from Carmine Difiglio, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Analysis, Office of Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy, to Keith J. Benes, Attorney-Advisor, Department of 

State, submitted by Mr. Terry ............................................................................ 126 

Article, dated February 1, 2012, ‘‘Obama’s Enemies List,’’ by Theodore B. 

Olson in the Wall Street Journal, submitted by Mr. Pompeo .......................... 151 

Article, dated December 31, 2011, ‘‘Mike Klink: Keystone XL pipeline not 

safe,’’ by Mike Klink in the Lincoln Journal Star, submitted by Mr. Waxman ........................................................................................................................ 156

Letter, dated February 1, 2012, from Mike Klink of Auburn, Indiana, to 

Mr. Waxman, submitted by Mr. Waxman ......................................................... .158 

(1) 

AMERICAN JOBS NOW: A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3548, THE NORTH AMERICAN 

ENERGY ACCESS ACT—DAY 1 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:05 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Sullivan, Shimkus, 

Walden, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray, Scalise, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Barton, Kinzinger, Upton (ex officio), Rush, 

Inslee, Markey, Green, Doyle, Gonzalez, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Caroline Basile, 

Staff Assistant; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy General Counsel; Anita 

Bradley, Senior Policy Advisor to Chairman Emeritus; Maryam 

Brown, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Garrett 

Golding, Professional Staff Member, Energy; Cory Hicks, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Peter Kielty, Senior Legislative Analyst; Heidi King, Chief Economist; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy 

and Power; Dave McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and Economy; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Katie Novaria, Legislative Clerk; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Greg Dotson, 

Democratic Energy and Environment Staff Director; Caitlin 

Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; Elizabeth Letter, Democratic Assistant Press Secretary; and Alexandra Teitz, Democrat 

Senior Counsel, Environment and Energy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call this meeting to order this 

morning, and the subject of this hearing is ‘‘American Jobs Now,’’ 

and we are going to be considering H.R. 3548, the North American 

Energy Access Act. 

I would also like to welcome those members of the referee training class. I didn’t realize you all were going to be with us this 

morning but we are delighted you are here on the second row, and 

I hope you will enjoy the hearing as well. 

2 

Today’s hearing gives us the opportunity to learn why the 

Obama administration denied a permit to build the Keystone pipeline from Canada though parts of the United States. How could the 

Obama administration when presented with the chance to create 

thousands of jobs and at the same time significantly reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East say ‘‘no’’ to the American people? 

Today we will examine how such a harmful decision was made 

and explore opportunities to reverse that decision. While the administration struggles to find a rational reason to reject the construction of Keystone pipeline, we are going to look for ways to 

build the Keystone pipeline. 

This is a project that would cost about $7 billion to build. There 

would not be any government money involved in this project. It is 

all being supplied by private industry, and it would immediately 

put at least 20,000 people to work. That certainly sounds like the 

national interest to me. 

If our President decides that sending three aircraft carrier strike 

groups to the Strait of Hormuz to defend the free flow of oil, if he 

thinks that is in the national interest, then one would also think 

a pipeline from Canada that would help us be less dependent on 

Middle Eastern oil would also serve the national interest. 

The President’s own State Department determined that the pipeline would have no significant impact on the environment. The 

President said it himself. His rejection of the Keystone pipeline is 

not based on its merits. He said that, which makes us belief that 

the decision to reject the pipeline was solely a political decision to 

help him be reelected. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

3 


76343.001

Opening Statement of the Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Hearing on "American Jobs Now: H.R. 3548, the 

North American Energy Access Act" 

January 25, 2012 

(As Prepared for Delivery) 

Today's hearing gives us the opportunity to examine solutions to a problem that 

shouldn't exist. The problem I'm speaking of is how an administration can be 

presented with the chance to create tens of thousands of jobs while reducing our 

dependence on Middle East sources of oil, yet completely squander the opportunity. 

Today we're here to look into how such an unacceptable decision was made and how 

it can be corrected so that we are able to create 20,000 jobs and relieve our 

dependence on hostile sources of fuel through this project. 

The phrase "national interest" should be somewhat simple to understand. If the 

nation is plagued by persistent unemployment and a private company is willing to 

spend $7 billion to construct an infrastructure project, putting over 100,000 people 

to work - that sounds like something that serves the national interest. 

If our President decides that sending aircraft carrier strike groups to the Strait of 

Hormuz to defend oil flow is in the national interest, then one would also think a 

pipeline from Canada that would help eliminate our Middle East oil imports also 

serves the national interest. 

Unfortunately, that is not the same conclusion that President Obama reached, stating 

that they needed more time. Over 3 years was not enough time. Eleven agencies 

reviewing the pipeline was not enough review. 

President Obama's delays could risk losing the project entirely, and even the State 

Department agrees in its OWN environmental impact statement that the "no action" 

option (not building the pipeline at all) is the wrong option. But I worry that's where 

we are headed. 

So today we want to ask questions of the Administration and hear their perspective 

on legislation offered by our colleague Mr. Terry of Nebraska. 

### 
4 

[H.R. 3548 follows:] 

5 


76343.002

112TH CONGRJ:;JSS 

1ST SESSION H.R.3548 

To facilitatt' United States access to North American oil resources, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE 0Ii' HEPHESENTATIVES 

DEC~=lVlEKR 2, 2011 

:\ill'. TERRY (for himself, Mr. UPTON, Mr. WmTF'mLD, Mrs. Blu\ClillFRN, NIl'. 

LA1'TA, :\ill'. MURPHY of Penllsylvllnia, Mrs. McMORRIS RODGKRS, Mr. 

Rr<JHBKRG, Mr. B~JRG, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. PITT"" Mr. SITI"LIVAN, Mr. 

SHIMKCS, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. Or,soN, :\ill'. GARDNER, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. 

IUNZINGKR of Illinois, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. GRIM]\[, Mr. BllRGKSS, NIl'. 

THORNBERRY, NIl'. CAWl'eJR, J\Ir. NIHJGEBAegR, Ms. GRA1'WER, Mr. CllLBEf(SO", Mr. flAM ,JOfINSO" of Texas, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. lVlARINO, Mr. 

KKLLY, Mr. SCHOCK, lVIr. LAT01Jf(KTTE, :\ill'. MCCOTTItiH, Mr. DAVIS of 

Kentucky, Mr. Trm\ER of Ohio, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. GlEBS, Mr. MILLEIt 

of Florida, Mr. P01\.llES, Mr. MANZl'LLO, Mr. RmToN of Texas, and Mr. 

flHUS'J'EIt) introdueed the following bill; which was referred to the COlllmittee on Energy and Commeree, and in addition to the Committees on 

Transportat.ion and IufrastnH't.ure and Natural Resollrces, 1'0(' a period 

to be subsequently detprmined by the Speaker, in eaeh ease for consideration of such provisions as fall wit.hin the jurisdiction of the committee 

concenlcd 

A BILL 

To faeilitate United States aeeess to North ~\.meriean oil 

resourees, and for other purposes, 

1 Be it enaeted by the Se:naie and lIouse Ql Re]Jm~enta2 lives of the United Slcdes of America. in Congress assembled, 
6 


76343.003

2 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 '{'his Aet may be eited as the "North Ameriean En3 ergy Aeeess Aet". 

4 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.-No person may eonstruet, ope1'-

6 ate, or maintain the oil pipeline and related faeilities de7 seribed in subseetion (h) exeept in aeeorclanee with a pel'-

8 mit issued under this Act. 

9 (b) PIPELINE.-'l'he pipeline and related faeilities re10 ferred to in subsection (a) are those described in the Final 

11 Environmental Impaet Statement for the Keystone XIl 

12 Pipeline Prqject issued by the Department of State on Au13 gust 2fj, 2011, ineluding an,v modified version of that pipe14 line and related ftt(·ilities. 

15 SEC. 3. PERMIT. 

16 (a) ISSUANCE.-

17 (1) By FERC.-'l'he Federal Energy Regulatory 

18 Commission shall, not later than 30 days after re19 ceipt of an applieation therefor, issue a permit for 

20 the eonstrnetion, operation, and maintenance of the 

21 oil pipeline and related facilities described in seetion 

22 2(b), to be implemented in aeeordanee ,,'ith the 

23 terms of the Pinal Environmental Impaet Statement 

24 deseribed in seetion 2(b). The Commission shall not 

25 be required to pt'epare a Reeord of Deeision under 

26 seetion 1505.2 of title 40 of the Code of Pederal 

.HR 3548 IH 
7 


76343.004

3 

Regulations with respect to Issuanee of the permit 

2 provided for in this seetion. 

3 (2) ISSU"~'!CE IN ABSENCE OF' I<'ERC ACTlON.-

4 If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has 

5 not acted on an application for a permit described 

6 in paragraph (1) vvithin 30 days after receiving such 

7 application, the permit shall be deemed to have been 

8 issued under this Act upon the e,q)iration of such 

9 30-day period. 

10 (b) MODIFICATlON.-

11 (1) IN GENEHAL.-The applicant for or holder 

12 of a permit described in subsection (a) may make a 

13 substantial modification to the pipeline route or any 

14 other term of the Final Euvironmental Impact 

15 Statement described in section 2(b) only with the 

16 approval of the Pederal Bnergy l~el2:nlatory Commis17 sion. The Commission shall expedite consideration of 

18 any such modification proposal. 

19 (2) NEBRASKA MODIFICATION.-The Peeleral 

20 Energy lkgulatory Commission shall enter into a 

21 memorandum of understanding \vith the State of 

22 Nebraska for an effective and timely review under 

23 the National Environmental Poliey Act of 19G9 of 

24 any modification to the proposed pipeline route m 

25 Nebraska as proposed by the applicant for the per-

.llR 3548 III 
8 


76343.005

4 

1 mit described ill subsec·tioIl (a). Not later than :30 

2 days after receiving approval of sueh proposed mocli3 fication from the Governor of Nebraska, the Com4 mission shall complete consideration of and approve 

5 such modification. 

6 (:3) ISSUru'JCE IN ABSENCE OF FERC ACTION.-

7 If the Pedel'al Bnergy Hegulatoty Commission has 

8 not acted on an application for approval of a modi9 fication described in paragraph (2) within :30 days 

10 after receiving snch application, such modification 

11 shall be deemed to have been issued under this Act 

12 npon expiration of the :30-day period. 

13 SEC. 4. RELATION TO OTHER LAW. 

14 (a) GBJNERAL RULE.-Except as provided in sub15 section (b), a permit issued under this Act shall be the 

16 sole legal authority required to construct, operate, and 

17 maintain the pipeline and related faeilities deseribed in 

18 Rection 2(b) in the United StateR. 

19 (b) BXCEPTIONS.-Notbing 111 this Act shall affect 

20 the application to the pipeline and related facilities de21 seribed in seetion 2(b) of22 (1) chapter 60 I of title 4~), United States Code; 

23 or 

.HR 3548 IH 
9 


76343.006

5 

1 (2) the authority of the Federal Energy Regu2 latory Commjssion to regulate oil pipeline rates and 

3 serVICes. 

() 

.HR 3548 III 
10 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to yield the remainder 

of my time to Mr. Terry. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

on this bill. 

A couple of points with the couple of minutes I have. This is 

what the State Department has by way of environmental studies 

on the Keystone route. As you can see, it is very voluminous and 

it is difficult to understand why this would just be discarded, and 

we will get into some of the points later during questioning. 

I want to go off my regular script and just express my displeasure that the State Department decided or objected to our Nebraska witness that could help put in context the Nebraska exemption and what Nebraska is doing. The State Department objected 

because they don’t sit on the same panel as a State witness, so the 

head of our Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality is not 

worthy enough to sit there, and because of time constraints, his 

ability to answer our questions had to be deleted from this panel 

and frankly, I am disturbed by that. 

But we are going to get into the false excuse of using the State 

of Nebraska as the reason—reading your testimony—as the reason 

for the denial. In fact, the bill was written so you wouldn’t have 

to make that decision, and we will get into those statements. I 

yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

I might say also that last night the President in his State of the 

Union address talked about the importance of infrastructure for 

America to remain competitive. 

Mr. RUSH. I am really going to have to say that regular order 

isn’t in order, and the 5 minutes is up, so we should proceed because the regular order is up. Your time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I think when you said that, there was still 

30 seconds left. 

Mr. RUSH. I looked at it and it was—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We will enforce the 5-minute rule and recognize 

the gentleman for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing 

me. 

Mr. Chairman, I am also delighted to see the referees there. This 

is a good opportunity for them to exercise their craft because I expect there to be a big battle to take place this morning at this 

morning’s hearing, because, Mr. Chairman, today we are holding 

yet another hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline as a follow-up to 

the last hearing, the last markup and the former we had where the 

majority attempted to force the Obama administration to hastily 

make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. Let me remind you, 

the majority first tried to move legislation that required the administration to forego its legal obligations and its due diligence and 

come out with a favorable decision for Keystone XL by November 

11 

1 of last year, and the majority’s reckless and irresponsible view if 

the American public was left unprotected because the administration did not have the time needed to conduct a thorough review, 

I want to repeat, a thorough review and oversight of this project. 

For my Republican colleagues, as long as industry got what it 

wanted, then that was the most important role of this Congress. 

After that tactic failed, the majority held hostage the payroll tax 

cut extension, which would benefit millions of middle-class working 

families, in order to attach a rider that attempted to force President Obama to come out in favor of Keystone XL within 60 days 

of the bill’s enactment, and we all know how well that strategy 

worked out. 

Again, the majority said too bad if ordinary Americans might 

have been negatively impacted by a lack of Federal oversight, and 

who cares if the Republican governor and legislators Nebraska 

have yet to even identify a new route for the pipeline. As was the 

theme all last year, my Republican colleagues continue to push this 

false notion that if you would just roll back government oversight 

and protections for average Americans and allow industry to do 

what it wants without restriction, and unfettered, then somehow 

miraculously, jobs will be created and millions of out-of-work Americans will be gainfully employed. After all, Mr. Chairman, we saw 

how well this well-defined philosophy worked during the Bush 

years with the collapse of our total financial institutions and our 

economy. 

Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that 25 Energy and Power Subcommittee and joint hearings, the nine bills that originated from 

this subcommittee that went through the House last year, the only 

piece of legislation that actually became law was the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization bill, which expanded regulation in order to address public safety. In fact, the pipeline safety bill enjoyed unanimous support from this committee and so it would appear that my 

Republican colleagues are not always opposed to Federal regulation 

and oversight, especially when their districts are directly affected. 

So Mr. Chairman, today we are here on another proverbial fishing expedition by the majority party, again to try to sidestep Federal regulations and oversight in order to help industry get what 

they want and the American public be damned in the process. I am 

not sure if the majority’s goal is simply to show TransCanada that 

they are working feverishly on their behalf for more campaign contributions, even when they know that the underlying legislation 

would never, ever become law—— 

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. RUSH [continuing]. Or they are trying to keep this issue—— 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. I think the gentleman’s time has expired 

and I want his words taken down. 

Mr. RUSH [continuing]. With the millions of dollars that the—— 

Mr. TERRY. I move that his words be stricken. 

Mr. RUSH [continuing]. American Petroleum Institute is pouring 

into commercials supporting Keystone XL. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. RUSH. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Recognize the gentleman from Nebraska. 

12 

Mr. TERRY. The gentleman made an accusation saying that we 

are tied to campaign contributions. A, that is wrong, but that is 

against our rules. His words need to be taken down. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We will have the clerk review the transcript, and 

then we will proceed at that time, and I will remind everyone that 

we do not need to be making accusations about what people are 

and are not doing as far as legal campaign finance laws and whatever. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan for 5 minutes, Mr. Upton, the chairman of the full committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice we have a 

number of referees in that second row. Welcome to the big house. 

I note that you have got red flags, and of course, that is not a yellow flag, that is a red flag. A red flag usually means it is a review 

of the play. We look forward to having a review of the play. In fact, 

that vote did pass in this committee and on the House Floor by a 

two-to-one margin, and we are looking to have the ruling on the 

field confirmed again and perhaps again and again. 

It is not often that Congress can take a single step that will simultaneously help reduce the future price at the gas pump, 

strengthen the Nation’s energy security, and create literally tens of 

thousands of jobs. And it is certainly not often that we can accomplish all of these important goals at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. But this is exactly what approving the Keystone XL pipeline 

expansion project would do and why I support this legislation, H.R. 

3548, the North American Energy Access Act. 

Keystone is a shovel-ready project whose construction would create badly needed jobs. Once completed, it would allow more oil 

from our ally Canada to come to the United States, taking the 

place of imports from far less friendly producers. The oil would go 

to refiners in the Midwest and the Gulf Coast, increasing the supply of American-made gas and preserving domestic refining jobs. 

The pipeline would also provide an outlet for the growing supplies 

of domestic oil produced in the Bakken formation in North Dakota 

and Montana, relieving a potential bottleneck there. And every 

penny of the $7 billion project will be paid for by the private sector. 

Given the many benefits of Keystone, it is no surprise that so 

many Americans consider this decision to be a no-brainer, especially since the environmental impacts of the project have been extensively studied for years and found to be minimal. 

Last July, the House passed a bill requiring the State Department to make the long-overdue decision on Keystone by November 

1st. It was certainly bipartisan, 47 Democrats joining nearly all the 

Republicans in supporting the reasonable measure. The bill probably would have garnered even more votes if not for the administration’s repeated assurances that it is going to make a decision before the end of 2011, and that a legislated deadline was not necessary. 

But sadly, as the end of the year approached, the administration 

reversed position and postponed its decision until 2013 at the earliest. In response, Congress gave the President a second chance to 

13 

do the right thing by providing him yet another 60 days to approve 

Keystone as part of the payroll tax bill, but last week he decided 

to reject the proposal after only 26 days. You see, 60 days wasn’t 

enough. 

Make no mistake, time is of the essence. Not only are unemployed Americans anxiously looking for jobs, not only is Iran 

threatening the Strait of Hormuz, not only is the price at the pump 

headed towards perhaps 5 bucks in the next couple of months, but 

the Canadian government is understandably growing impatient 

with the endless red tape and delays coming from Washington. 

Canada is rapidly increasing its oil production, and if the United 

States foolishly refuses to be a customer for these new supplies, 

Canada will build a pipeline not to the south but to the Pacific 

coast and the oil will be exported to China, where they are waving 

their hands because they want it there. 

That is why we are again offering an opportunity to approve 

Keystone. I believe that this approach, this legislation giving the 

decision-making authority to the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is a good one. I look forward to moving it 

through the committee, and I would yield to anyone on our side 

that would like time, and if not, will yield back the remainder of 

my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

14 


76343.007

Opening Statement of the Honorable Fred Upton 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Hearing on "American Jobs Now: H.R. 3548, the 

North American Energy Access Act" 

January 25, 2012 

(As Prepared for Delivery) 

It's not often that Congress can take a single step that will simultaneously help reduce the 

future price at the gas pump, strengthen the nation's energy security, and create tens of 

thousands of jobs. And it's certainly not often that we can accomplish all of these important 

goals at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. But this is exactly what approving the Keystone XL 

pipeline expansion project would do, and that is why I support H.R. 3548, the North American 

Energy Access Act. 

Keystone XL is a shovel-ready project whose construction would create badly needed jobs. 

Once completed, it would allow more oil from our ally Canada to come to the U.S., taking the 

place of imports from far less friendly producers. The oil would go to refiners in the Midwest 

and Gulf Coast, increasing the supply of American-made gasoline and preserving domestic 

refining jobs. The pipeline would also provide an outlet for the growing supplies of domestic oil 

produced in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana, relieving a potential 

bottleneck there. And every penny of this $7 billion dollar project will be paid for by the private 

sector. 

Given the many benefits of Keystone XL, it is no surprise that so many Americans consider this 

decision to be a no-brainer, especially since the environmental impacts of the project have 

been extensively studied for several years and found to be minimal. 

Last July, the House passed a bill requiring the State Department to make its long-overdue 

decision on Keystone XL by November 1st. It was truly a bipartisan effort, with 47 Democrats 

joining nearly all Republicans in supporting this reasonable measure. The bill probably would 

have garnered even more votes if not for the administration's repeated assurances that it is 

going to make a decision before the end of 2011, and that a legislated deadline is not 

necessary. 

Unfortunately, as the end of the year approached, the administration reversed position and 

postponed its decision to 2013 at the earliest. In response, Congress gave the President a 

second chance to do the right thing by providing him another 60 days to approve Keystone XL 

as part of the payroll tax bill, but last week he decided to reject the project. 

Make no mistake, time is of the essence. Not only are unemployed Americans anxiously 

looking for jobs, not only is Iran threatening the Strait of Hormuz, not only is the price at the 

pump headed higher, but the Canadian government is understandably growing impatient with 

the endless red tape and delays coming from Washington. Canada is rapidly increasing its oil 

production, and if the U.S. foolishly refuses to be a customer for these new supplies, Canada 

will build a pipeline to the Pacific coast and the oil will be exported to China and other overseas 

buyers. 

That is why we are again offering an opportunity to approve Keystone XL. I believe the 

approach in H.R. 3548 of giving the decision-making authority to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission is a good one and I look forward to moving it through this Committee. 

### 
15 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from California for 5 minutes, Mr. Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

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 is the case. 

The fact is that the legislation we are 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 don’t stand up 

to scrutiny. This tar sands pipeline won’t boost our energy independence or lower gas prices or create the inflated jobs being promised. 

Why have the Republicans introduced bill after bill to short-circuit the permitting process on Keystone XL? They say it will make 

the country more energy independent. That is a myth. Oil prices 

are set by the global markets. This pipeline will have no impact on 

our vulnerability to price spikes or Iranian brinksmanship. 

In fact, Keystone won’t even reduce our imports. It will simply 

allow Canadian oil companies to use the United States as a conduit 

for shipping their tar sands overseas to China. 

Now, I know they say if they don’t get this pipeline, they are 

going to go to the West Coast. Well, that is a problem, because 

there are First Nations in Canada that don’t want this pipeline 

going in that direction, and it is not so clear they can get the approval to do that. 

The Republicans say it will cut gasoline prices. But the opposite 

will happen. Canadian oil that is now being refined in the Midwest 

and suppressing prices in that market will be diverted to the Gulf 

Coast for export, costing consumers in the Midwest billions of dollars. 

The Republicans say they support the pipeline because it will 

create tens of thousands of jobs, but that is not right either. According to TransCanada, the company seeking to build the Keystone XL pipeline, the project will have ‘‘a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel.’’ Some labor 

groups have recently described the GOP’s antics on Keystone as 

the ‘‘politics-as-usual strategy of a do-nothing Republican Congress.’’ 

If the Republicans were seriously and actually concerned about 

jobs, they would work with the President passing his jobs bill. They 

have no solution to the jobs crisis. The jobs crisis, they say, must 

be responded to by tearing away regulations to protect public 

health and safety. We will have more jobs if we let billionaires keep 

more money and it will trickle down to more jobs. And then they 

16 

say this one project will provide the jobs we need. It is amazing to 

me. The fact is, the legislation we are considering today is one that 

is hard to understand. 

This committee has an obligation to understand who benefits 

from this legislation. Last year, news organizations reported that 

one company, Koch Industries, would be one of the ‘‘big winners’’ 

if this pipeline were constructed. 

We asked Koch whether this was true and were told that they 

have no interest whatsoever in the pipeline. But then we learned 

that they have told the Canadian government that they have a ‘‘direct and substantial interest.’’ Something does not add up. 

To understand this situation better, Mr. Rush and I requested 

that we invite the Koch brothers or the Koch Industries to come 

here and testify. The chairman hasn’t even responded to our letter. 

We therefore, Mr. Chairman, are invoking the minority’s rights 

under rule XI of the House rules to have a minority day of hearings. It is important that we hear from Koch and other stakeholders. 

I think this pipeline is a bad idea. It ignores the concerns of 

the—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I would also tell the gentleman, we will certainly accept the letter and we will follow the rules, but we are not going to be subpoenaing the Koch brothers, and we are not asking the Koch brothers to appear because the Koch brothers have nothing to do with 

this project. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, how does—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. You made a statement where you were not recognized for the time. You cut me off 

in the middle of a sentence. I would like to know the substantiation 

for your—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Your time was up, Mr. Waxman. 

Now, we are going to recess this hearing for 10 minutes, and 

then we are going to come back. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Are you calling the Koch brothers during the recess? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me tell you something. If you want to talk 

about that, let us talk about the millions of dollars that the Obama 

administration gave companies like Solyndra, to people like George 

Kaiser, who is out there bundling money for the President. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would you like for us to—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would you like for us to subpoena him, too? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Why are you interrupting members and then you 

take unlimited time for yourself? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am responding to your questions, your allegations. I am the chairman and I am telling you right now, we are 

going to recess for 10 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I call the hearing back to order, and at this time 

we will hear the testimony of our two witnesses, and I would like 

to welcome both of you to this hearing today. 

17 

First of all, we have the Honorable Kerri-Ann Jones, who is the 

Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, and we also have Mr. Jeffery 

Wright, who is the Director, Office of Energy Projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

So once again, I welcome you all to the hearing. Each one of you 

will be recognized for 5 minutes, and then we will have questions 

for you at that time. 

So Ms. Jones, I will recognize you for your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. KERRI–ANN JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS; AND 

JEFF C. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS, 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF KERRI–ANN JONES 

Ms. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush and other members of the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power. I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today. 

The U.S. Department of State received the application for Keystone XL pipeline project in September 2008. We undertook a thorough, rigorous and transparent process to determine whether 

issuance of a Presidential Permit for this pipeline was in the national interest. 

In December, Congress passed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut 

Continuation Act of 2011, which required a determination by the 

President within 60 days of whether the Keystone XL proposal 

project would serve the national interest. On January 18, 2012, the 

Department of State recommended to the President that the application for a Presidential Permit be denied due to insufficient time 

to conduct the necessary analysis. The President accepted our recommendation and determined that the Keystone XL pipeline 

project, as presented and analyzed at that time, would not serve 

the national interest. 

I would like to provide some further details about this process 

and also comment briefly on the administration’s view of H.R. 

3548. 

On April 30, 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order 13337, 

which designated and empowered the Department of State to receive the applications for Presidential Permits for all oil infrastructure projects that cross a United States border. The Executive 

Order indicates that the permit should be granted based on whether it is in the national interest. The Department’s national interest 

determination factors include numerous issues including energy security, foreign policy, economic effects, health, safety and environmental considerations including climate change as well as any 

other factor the Department believes is relevant to the national interest. To make an informed decision, the Department is directed 

in the Executive Order to request additional information as needed 

from the applicant. 

In order to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the 

project as required by the Executive Order, the Department deterVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:04 Nov 28, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-10~1.ENE\112-10~1.ENE WAYNE
18 

mined that it would prepare an 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 outreach effort including meetings along the proposed pipeline route. 

On August 26, 2011, we issued the final EIS. Following its 

issuance, we began an interagency review period for the national 

interest determination and we conducted an additional public comment period that closed on October 9, 2011. We held meetings 

along the pipeline route including in the Sand Hills. These meetings were passionate with strong opinions and rationale on both 

sides. In Nebraska, we heard concerns about the fragile and unique 

Sand Hills of Nebraska. We heard about their important 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 protected. 

That is why we paused the process in November 2011, and based 

on experience with pipelines of similar length, we estimated that 

it would take until early 2013 to complete our assessment. 

In December 2011, as we were cooperating with Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality, the Temporary Payroll Tax 

Cut Continuation Act was enacted into law. We knew that 60 days 

was not enough time to complete the work and the analysis needed 

relevant to the national interest determination. We decided based 

not on the merits but on the inadequate time period and incomplete review to recommend that the President deny the permit. 

This now brings me to H.R. 3548. The proposed legislation imposes narrow time constraints and creates automatic mandates 

that prevent an informed decision. We also feel the legislation 

raises serious questions about existing legal authorities and appears to override foreign policy and national security considerations 

implicated by a cross-border permit, which are properly assessed by 

the State Department. 

Mr. Chairman, internationally we remain fully engaged with all 

our key partners and suppliers including Canada as we work on 

issues of energy security and diplomacy. As we do this, the State 

Department remains committed to carrying out its responsibilities 

under the Executive Order with diligence and fairness to the applicants but with ultimate concern for the best interest of the American people. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:] 

19 


76343.008

TESTIMONY OF 

DR. KERRI-ANN JONES 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE 

BUREAIJ OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND 

SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER OF THE COMMITTEE 

ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2012 

Good morning Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush and other Members of the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power; I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The Keystone XL project is a proposed seven billion dollar, 1,700-mile pipeline that 

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP applied to build and operate. It would transport up to 

830,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries in the U. S. Gulf Coast 

Region. Most of the oil would originate from the oil sands of Alberta, although as much as 

] 00,000 barrels per day might have come from the Bakken formation in Montana and North 

Dakota and up to 150,000 barrels per day could have been transported from Cushing, Oklahoma 

to the Gulf Coast. The U.S. Department of State received the application for this project in 

September 2008. We began a thorough, rigorous and transparent process to determine whether 

issuance of a Presidential Permit for this pipeline was in the national interest. Congress passed 

the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of2011, which required a determination by the 

President, within 60 days, of whether the Keystone XL pipeline project would serve the national 

interest. On January 18,20]2 the Department of State recommended to the President that the 

application for a Presidential Permit be denied, due to insufficient time to conduct the necessary 

1 
20 


76343.009

analysis, and the President accepted our recommendation and determined that the Keystone XL 

pipeline project, as presented and analyzed at that time, would not serve the national interest. 

I would now like to fill in some further details about our authority to conduct such a 

process, about the way in which we did so, and about the events that led to our final 

recommendation. I will also comment briefly on the Administration's view of HR. 3548, the 

bill that Congressman Terry and others have introduced seeking to provide an expedited 

approval of the pipeline by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. 

On April 30, 2004, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13337, which 

amended Executive Order 11423, originally issued in 1968. Executive Order 13337 designated 

and empowered the Department of State to receive the applications for Presidential Permits for 

all oil infrastructure projects that cross a U.S. border. The Executive Order indicates that the 

permit should be granted based on whether it is in the national interest. The Executive Order 

also states that the Secretary shall consult with eight other agencies: the Departments of 

Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and Transportation, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Order 13337 also envisions broader consultations 

to include state, tribal and local government officials and foreign governments. The 

Department's national interest determination factors in a full range of issues, including energy 

security, foreign policy, economic effects, health, safety, and environmental considerations, 

including climate change, as well as any other factor the Department believes is relevant to the 

national interest. To make an informed decision, the Department is directed in the Executive 

Order to request additional information as needed from the applicant. 

2 
21 


76343.010

In order to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project, as required by 

Executive Order 13337, the Department of State determined that it would prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969. 

Preparation of an EIS requires significant technical expertise. In a project of this 

complexity, it requires a great deal of scientific input, including from geologists, hydrologists, 

ecologists and botanists, to name a few. It requires engineers that understand fluid dynamics and 

material strength and pipe-welding specifications. It requires statisticians and economists; it 

requires experts in oil spills and emergency oil spill response. In preparing the EIS for the 

Keystone pipeline, we consulted extensively with other federal agencies that have substantial 

direct expertise in these areas. 

We followed the provisions of the NEPA regulations, and the example of other federal 

agencies in engaging a technical contractor to assist in developing the EIS. ENTRIX (now 

Cardno ENTRIX) was selected. The applicant paid the costs of preparing the EIS. We directed 

the work ofENTRIX and ensured the quality of all information and analysis in the EIS. 

At the same time, we conducted two parallel processes mandated by law. Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires agencies to consider the effects of their 

actions on properties that may have religious or cultural importance and to engage the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. In addition, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires 

3 
22 


76343.011

Federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that the proposed action 

will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened 

species. 

Following NEPA requirements, we engaged in a robust public outreach effort. We 

carried out our consultation on many different levels, including Government-to-Government 

consultations with over 95 Indian tribes. In 2009, we conducted 20 scoping meetings in 

communities along the pipeline route. In April of2010 we issued a Draft EIS and held 21 public 

comment meetings during a 45-day period including meetings in Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington, DC. As a result of these comments and 

consultations, we issued a Supplemental Draft EIS in April 20 II. In the subsequent 45-day 

period, we received over 280,000 comments. On August 26,2011, we issued the Final ElS. 

Following its issuance we began an interagency review period for the national interest 

determination required by Executive Order 13337 and conducted an additional public comment 

period that closed on October 9, 2011. During this period we again held public meetings in 

Washington, DC and along the pipeline route, including in the Sand Hills of Nebraska. 

These meetings were passionate. We heard voices urging diametrically opposite actions 

and providing solid rationales on both sides. In Nebraska particularly, we again heard concerns, 

clearly and repeatedly, about the fragile and unique Sand Hills of Nebraska and their importance 

to the nation and to the people of Nebraska. We listened to these views, many actually 

supportive of the pipeline, but stressing that the route needed to be moved. Indeed, the people 

of Nebraska felt so strongly about this issue that their legislators met in special session to draft a 

4 
23 


76343.012

law to ensure the Sand Hills would be protected. That is why we paused the process in 

November 2011, and based on experience with pipelines of similar length we estimated that it 

would take until early 2013 to complete our assessment. 

In December 2011, as we were cooperating with Nebraska's Department of 

Environmental Quality to develop a process to evaluate any potential new route, the Temporary 

Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act (RR. 3765) was enacted into law imposing a 60-day clock on 

a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline pennit; at that time, the requested permit lacked 

critical infonnation, including the exact route of the pipeline. We knew that 60 days was not 

enough time to complete the work and the analysis needed relevant to the national interest 

determination, especially given that the route had not been finalized. We have been committed 

to carrying out a thorough, rigorous, inclusive and transparent review of this application and this 

was not possible within the timeline imposed. We decided - based not on the merits but on the 

inadequate time period and incomplete review to recommend that the President deny the 

pennit. 

This brings us to H.R. 3548. Last week the President concurred with our 

recommendation that the Keystone XL project would not serve the national interest at this time. 

That decision was based on the fact that the exact route of the pipeline has yet to be identified in 

critical areas. As a result, there are unresolved concerns for a full range of issues, including 

energy security, foreign policy, economic effects, health, safety, and environmental impacts, 

among other considerations. This new legislation would not resolve any of these concerns; it just 

imposes narrow time constraints and creates automatic mandates that prevent an informed 

5 
24 


76343.013

decision. The legislation raises serious questions about existing legal authorities, questions the 

continuing force of much of the federal and all of the state and local environmental and land use 

management authority over the pipeline, and overrides foreign policy and national security 

considerations implicated by a cross border pennit, which are properly assessed by the State 

Department. 

I know that each and every Member of this Committee is concerned about our nation's 

energy security, and I can assure you that Secretary Clinton and the Department of State share 

that concern. Internationally, we remain fully engaged with all our key suppliers, including 

Canada, as we work on issues of energy diplomacy while at the same time transitioning to 

cleaner sources of energy. As we do so, the Department of State remains committed to carrying 

out its responsibilities under Executive Order 13337 with diligence and fairness to the applicants 

but with ultimate concern for the best interests of the American people. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee might have. 

6 
25 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Jones. 

Mr. Wright, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF C. WRIGHT 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member 

Rush and members of the subcommittee, my name is Jeff Wright 

and I am the Director of the Office of Energy Projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. The Office of Energy Projects is 

responsible for, among other things, the certification of interstate 

natural gas pipelines pursuant to the National Gas Act. 

H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act, addresses the 

Keystone XL pipeline project. I have no position on the proposed 

bill, but should Congress direct the Commission to act on an application for the project, the Office of Energy Projects as the Commission’s infrastructure review branch would likely take a primary 

role in advising the Commission on the matter. Therefore, I will 

offer comments on the proposed bill with the goal of seeking to ensure that if Congress gives this responsibility to the Commission, 

the legislation should provide clear and effective procedures for 

conducting this review. 

Before commenting on specific sections, I do note that the authorization provided by the bill would differ substantially from the 

Natural Gas Act in that the proposed act does not make any explicit provision for procedures such as public notice, public comment, issuance of an order supporting a Commission decision, rehearing or judicial review in conjunction with the Commission’s 

consideration of an application. 

I now turn to specific provisions of the act. Section 3(a) of the bill 

would require the Commission to approve the project within 30 

days of receipt of an application, and if the Commission has not 

acted on the application within these 30 days, the application is 

deemed approved. The 30-day deadline would not permit construction of an adequate record of allow for meaningful public comment 

in arriving at a decision. In fact, section 3 could be read as giving 

the Commission no discretion in the issuance of the permit. 

The section also states that the permit is to be implemented in 

accordance with the terms of the final Environmental Impact 

Statement. However, it is not clear whether the Commission or any 

other entity would have authority to ensure and enforce compliance 

with the measures required by that document. 

Section 3(b)(1) allows for the applicant or permit holder to propose a modification of the route or other terms of the final Environmental Impact Statement and for the Commission to authorize 

such a modification. The bill, however, does not articulate a standard or a process for such a decision. Section 3(b)(2) of the bill states 

that the Commission will enter into a memorandum of understanding with the State of Nebraska for an effective and timely review under the National Environmental Policy Act of any route 

modification of the project in the State of Nebraska. Upon approval 

of the modification by the Governor of Nebraska, the Commission 

will have 30 days to finish its review and to approve the modification, and Section 3(b)(3) provides that if the Commission has not 

acted within 30 days, a modification shall be deemed approved. 

26 

The proposed process here is unclear. The bill appears to contemplate that such entity, either the Commission or the State, will 

issue a NEPA document regarding a Nebraska modification after 

which the Governor of Nebraska will have the opportunity to approve the proposal. The Commission then would have 30 days to 

complete consideration of and approve such modification. This section could be read to mean that the Commission has no discretion 

but to approve a Nebraska modification, and further, this section 

does not appear to provide a process for public notice and comment, 

opportunity for hearing or rehearing. 

Section 4 of the proposed legislation states that a permit issued 

under this act shall be the sole legal authority required to construct and operate the pipeline except for the safety oversight of 

the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Commission’s existing rate and 

tariff authority. The language makes it unclear whether such permits from other Federal agencies would still be required. Further, 

while the Department of State is responsible for issuing the Presidential Permit that authorizes the border crossing facilities, individual States or subdivisions thereof, depending on State law, have 

authority to site oil pipelines within their jurisdiction. This proposed legislation could be construed as providing that Federal jurisdiction supplants local authority. 

This concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 

27 


76343.014

Testimony of Jeffe. Wright 

Summary of Major Points 

• The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 

responsible for, among other things, the siting of natural gas pipelines. The 

Commission has no authority and no experience with the siting of oil 

pipelines. 

• We have no position on the proposed bill, H.R. 3548. If directed, the 

Commission will carty out the mandate of the legislation to the best of its 

ability. 

• We offer several teclmical comments on the proposed legislation: 

o Unlike our statutory provisions concerning gas pipeline siting, there 

are no explicit provisions for procedures such as public notice, 

public comment, issuance of an order supporting a Commission 

decision, rehearing, or judicial review. 

o Based on our experience in siting gas pipelines, the 30-day deadline 

for approval of a permit does not allow sufficient time to build an 

adequate record to arrive at a defensible decision. 

o It is unclear what entity would enforce the terms of the EIS. 

o The proposed process for a modification (in and out of Nebraska) is 

unclear and would appear to not allow the building of an adequate 

record upon which to base a defensible decision. 
28 


76343.015

o It is unclear whether the legislation would obviate the need for 

permits from other agencies. 

o The legislation could be construed as providing that federal 

jurisdiction supplants local authority. 
29 


76343.016

Testimony of JeffC. Wright 

Director, Office of Energy Projects 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on 

American Jobs Now: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3548, the North 

American Energy Access Act 

January 25, 2012 

Mr. Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush and members of the 

subcommittee: 

My name is Jeff Wright and I am the Director of the Office of Energy 

Projects at the Federal Energy RegulatOlY Commission (FERC or Commission). 

The views I express are my own and not necessarily those of the Commission or 

of any individual Commissioner. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

to discuss H.R. 3548. 

Summruy 

1. We have no position on the proposed bill, H.R. 3548. 

2. Although FERC is the federal agency with responsibility over the 

certification of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities, the 

Commission has no authority over the siting of interstate oil pipelines. However, I 

am testifying today to offer technical comments on H.R. 3548 based on my 

expertise. 
30 


76343.017

l. Background 

The Office of Energy Projects is responsible for the certification of 

interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities; the authorization and 

oversight over the construction and operation of on-shore and near-shore liquefied 

natmal gas (LNG) tenninals; and the licensing, administration, and safety of nonfederal hydropower projects. In reviewing applications for proposed projects, the 

Commission is required by the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Power Act 

(FPA) to provide public notice and opportunity for hearing before acting, to 

explain the reasons for its decisions, and to authorize only those projects that it 

detennines, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statutes, are in the 

public interest. 

II. H.R. 3548 

H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act, addresses the 

Keystone XL Pipeline Project (project). Should Congress direct the Commission 

to act on an application for the project, the Office of Energy Projects, as the 

Commission's infrastructure review branch, would likely take a primary role in 

advising the Commission on the matter. Therefore, I will offer comments on the 

proposed bill, with the goal of seeking to ensure that, if Congress gives this 

responsibility to the Commission, then the legislation should provide clear and 

effective procedures for conducting this review. 

Before commenting on specific sections, I note that the authorization 

provided by the bill would differ substantially from either the NGA or the FP A in 

- 2-
31 


76343.018

that the proposed Act does not make any explicit provision for procedures such as 

public notice, public comment, issuance of an order supporting a Commission 

decision, rehearing, or judicial review in conjunction with the Commission's 

consideration of an application. 

I now tum to the specific provisions of the Act. 

A. Section 3 

Section 3(a) of the bill would require the Commission to approve the 

project within 30 days of receipt of an application and, if the Commission has not 

acted on the application within these 30 days, the application is deemed approved. 

The bill also states that the Commission is not required to issue a record of 

decision, as would normally be required when implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) under the NGA and FP A. FUliher, the 

30-day deadline would not permit constmction of an adequate record or allow for 

meaningful public comment in arriving at a decision. In fact, section 3 could be 

read as giving the Commission no discretion in the issuance of the permit (other 

than to choose not to act). This section also states that the permit is "to be 

implemented in accordance with the terms of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement"; however, it is not clear whether the Commission or any other entity 

would have authOlity to ensure and enforce compliance with the measures 

required by that document. The bill provides no specific authority. 

Section 3(b)( 1) allows for the applicant or permit holder to propose a 

modification of the route or other telms of the final environmental impact 

- 3 -
32 


76343.019

statement (FEIS) issued by the Department of State and for the Commission to 

authorize such a modification. The bill, however, does not articulate a standard or 

a process for such a decision. 

Section 3(b )(2) of the bill states that the Commission will enter into a 

Memorandum of Understanding with the State of Nebraska for "an effective and 

timely review" under NEPA of any route modification of the project in the State of 

Nebraska. Upon approval ofthe modification by the Governor of Nebraska, the 

Commission will have 30 days to finish its review and to approve the 

modification. 

Section 3(b)(3) provides that if the Commission has not acted within 30 

days on an application for a modification approved by the Governor of Nebraska, 

then the modification shall be deemed approved. 

The proposed process in this section is unclear. Typically, a federal agency 

develops a NEP A document in the course of reviewing a proposed action. The bill 

appears to contemplate that some entity perhaps, but not necessarily, the 

Commission - will issue a NEP A document regarding a Nebraska modification, 

after which the Governor of Nebraska will have the opportunity to approve the 

proposal. The Commission then would have 30 days to "complete consideration 

of and approve" such modification. The section could be read to mean that the 

Commission has no discretion (other than to choose not to act), but to approve a 

Nebraska modification. Further, the section appears to allow for no process for 

public notice and comment, opportunity for hearing, or rehearing. As a result, 

-4-
33 


76343.020

even assuming that the Commission has discretion, the Commission might have 

only limited infonnation on which to act on a Nebraska modification. Also, if a 

modification proposed under section 3(b )(1) conflicted with a Nebraska 

modification under section 3(b)(2), the Commission would have to compare and 

select an alternative within 30 days, making reasoned decision making extremely 

difficult. 

B. Section 4 

Section 4 of the proposed legislation states that a "pennit issued under this 

Act shall be the sole legal authority required to construct and operate" the pipeline 

except for the safety oversight of the Department of TranspOliation's Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Commission's rate and tariff 

authority. An FEIS contemplates that the project will be constructed and operated 

in compliance with pennits from other agencies (e.g., the U.S. Almy Corps of 

Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau 

of Reclamation, etc.); however, the language of Section 4 makes it unclear 

whether such pennits would still be required. Further, while the Deprutment of 

State is responsible for issuing the Presidential Pennit that authorizes the border 

crossing facilities (and the requisite NEP A review), under the cunent law, 

individual states (or subdivisions thereof, depending on state law) currently have 

certain authority to site oil pipelines within their jurisdiction. This proposed 

legislation could be construed as providing that federal jurisdiction supplants local 

authority. 

- 5 -
34 


76343.021

III. Conclusion 

This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

- 6-
35 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. Ms. Jones, on 

October 15, 2010, Secretary of State Clinton said she was inclined 

to approve the Keystone pipeline permit. On October 31, 2011, 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated the fact is that 

this is a decision that will be made by the State Department, and 

the very next day, President Obama said the decision would rest 

with him. But in the President’s announcement last week to reject 

the pipeline’s permit, he said he had accepted the State Department’s recommendation to do so. 

So my question would be, were you involved in the decision made 

at the State Department and did you recommend to the President 

that he reject this permit? 

Ms. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The recommendation that 

went to the President was a State Department recommendation, 

and it came from my bureau and other bureaus. It came through 

the deputy and through the Secretary to the President. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So your bureau recommended that the—— 

Ms. JONES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Permit be denied? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And what other bureaus at the State Department were involved in that decision making? 

Ms. JONES. The other bureau that is involved is the Bureau of 

Economic Affairs. The State Department looks at this pipeline 

across all of the issues that are involved so there are multiple bureaus involved in all of the meetings and discussions that we have. 

We also have some energy expertise, and we also have of course 

the regional bureau which handles matters with Canada. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, I think Mr. Walden over there has a copy 

of the impact statement, which is quite voluminous, but isn’t it 

true that the State Department’s draft Environmental Impact 

Statement concluded that the Keystone pipeline would have limited 

adverse environmental impact? 

Ms. JONES. Mr. Chairman, what the statement said was, it suggested that there would be little adverse impact to most resources. 

It then went on to say that was the case if the applicant followed 

all of the State and local rules and all of the mitigation procedures 

that were outlined. It then went on to say there were three or four 

areas that were of concern where there could be impact: called out 

spills a possibility, called out cultural resources related to Native 

Americans, called out wetlands and some other areas where trees 

and shrubs would not be put back after the pipeline was put in. 

The Environmental Impact Statement is very long. The summary 

is just a page, but there are many other pieces throughout the document. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Isn’t it true that the State Department’s own 

Environmental Impact Statement included review of an alternative 

not to build the pipeline at all and didn’t the Environmental Impact Statement conclude that building the pipeline along the preferred route was better environmentally than no pipeline at all? 

Ms. JONES. In the Environmental Impact Statement, we looked 

at many alternative routes and we analyzed those, and we looked 

at routes that avoided the Sand Hills. We looked at routes that 

36 

took short little jogs and made different changes. The Environmental Impact Statement did not identify any of those alternative 

routes as more preferable to the proposed route at that time based 

on the different environmental considerations that the different 

routes had as well as economic and some technical issues. 

But Mr. Chairman, the denial of this permit is related not to all 

of these pieces but to the timeline that we had in that we did not 

have a complete route to look at at this point. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Ms. Jones, reading directly from the Federal Environmental Impact Statement, it says, ‘‘As a result of these 

considerations, the Department of State does not regard the no action alternative, that is, not to build the pipeline, we do not regard 

that alternative to be preferable to the proposed project.’’ So this 

language in here is very clear that as opposed to not doing anything, the State Department concluded it was preferable to build 

the pipeline. So we found ourselves confused about how all of a 

sudden the State Department and the President reverse themselves on this. After all, this was a study that went on for 40 

months or so. 

My time is expired. At this time I would like to recognize the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Jones, most people would agree that haste makes waste. So 

my question is, why did the State Department recommend that the 

President deny the Keystone XL pipeline application? 

Ms. JONES. We recommended the denial because we felt we did 

not have the time to get the information that was needed on the 

alternative routes in Nebraska, and with not getting that information, we would also be unable to look at the other factors, economic, 

socioeconomic factors, environmental factors as well as foreign policy and energy security. We did not have the time to do that, and 

that is why we recommended denial. It was not based on the merits of the project. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, maybe you can further explain this. Why was 

the ‘‘full assessment’’ not completed by the arbitrary deadline set 

forth by the Republican bill and what additional issues did the 

State Department not have time to consider? 

Ms. JONES. In November when we identified that there was the 

need for additional information and in-depth analysis on alternative routes that would avoid the ecologically unique area, the 

Sand Hills in Nebraska, we recognized that there are many pieces 

to that information, and the first piece we don’t have yet is to just 

identify what some of those alternative routes may be. So we don’t 

even have a complete route for this pipeline, which goes through 

the whole central part of the country. That is one thing we don’t 

have. 

We also don’t have the level of detail. If we were to have a route, 

we would then have to get into the level of detail regarding all of 

the different kinds of information—the topography, the number of 

bodies of water crossed, if it crossed any aquifers. Then we would 

also have to look at if there were any endangered species issues, 

and of course, we would have to interact with the communities 

along that new route to hear their concerns and to understand 

what any issues might be there. So that overall process would take 

37 

several months and the estimate that we put out there was supported by both the applicant and the State of Nebraska when we 

talked to them about this. So this is the process that we had defined and worked with partners, both the applicant and the State 

of Nebraska, to understand what would be needed to get the information that we thought we needed to make a decision that would 

be very well informed. 

Mr. RUSH. Do you think then that it would have been irresponsible, reckless and potentially harmful to the American public had 

you tried to grant permits within these artificial deadlines as established by the Republicans in this situation? 

Ms. JONES. Well, I think it would have been irresponsible because we didn’t have defined a significant portion of a major pipeline that would be a major piece of infrastructure that would affect 

our country for many years. So I think having that information was 

an important piece, and that is what we based our first decision 

on November 10th and this most recent decision is based on the 

fact that we did not have the time to get the information we think 

we needed. 

Mr. RUSH. In all of your experience in your particular role and 

your capacity at the State Department, have you ever had any 

similar instances whereby Congress enacted some artificial deadline that did not allow you the time to thoroughly and completely 

perform your responsibilities to the American public? 

Ms. JONES. Not that I can recall, Congressman. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I need to make a disclosure before I ask my questions. My Congressional district in Texas, if it were a State, at one time would 

have been the fifth largest energy-producing State in the country. 

I have producing oil wells, producing natural gas wells. I have producing coal mines. I have coal-fired power plants. I have gas-fired 

power plants. I have oil pipelines. I have natural gas pipelines. I 

have water pipelines existing that are in use, and some that are 

not in use but are still underground. I have big pipelines and little 

pipelines. So I think I know a little bit about this subject. 

I have listened with interest to the gentlelady from the State Department’s explanation, and I will say that she puts the best face 

possible on a terrible decision that her department has made. One 

of the things that you just said, Madam Secretary, was that there 

were socioeconomic factors that had to be considered. Where is that 

in the law, especially the State Department, socioeconomic factors? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, the—— 

Mr. BARTON. No, is it in the law? I don’t need a long, dodge answer. Is there a statute under law that says the State Department 

has to consider socioeconomic factors, yes or no? 

Ms. JONES. It is in the Executive Order. 

Mr. BARTON. Oh, it is in the Executive Order. That is not a law. 

Ms. JONES. It is in NEPA as well, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. I see. Well, I would like you to provide it, if that 

is the case. 

38 

Is it a socioeconomic factor that a project might bring thousands 

of high-paying jobs to a region? Is that a socioeconomic factor? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. BARTON. Is it a socioeconomic factor that a project might 

bring much-needed energy to the mid-continent and the lower 

Southwest and southeastern States? Is that a socioeconomic factor? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. And were those considered? 

Ms. JONES. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARTON. Absolutely? So—— 

Ms. JONES. The decision at this time was not based on those factors. 

Mr. BARTON. So those socioeconomic factors might be the reason 

that until the radical environmentalists begin to protest and petition against it that when the Secretary of State was asked out in 

California the status of the application, she indicated that she was 

inclined or the State Department was inclined to approve it? Is 

that a fair statement? 

Ms. JONES. We considered—we were considering all of those factors that you mentioned, Congressman, but we were unable to complete that analysis because of the deadline that was put forward. 

Mr. BARTON. What is the statutory deadline in the law for consideration? Isn’t it 180 days after receipt of the application? 

Ms. JONES. I am not sure, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. I know it is not 4 years, OK? I am not going 

to swear it is 180 days but I think it is 180 days. 

Ms. JONES. My understanding is that in previous cases where we 

have reviewed pipelines, it has taken 2 years or so. So I don’t know 

what the statutory timeline is. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, there are three phases of a pipeline. You have 

the construction phase, you have the operation phase, and unfortunately, on occasion, you can have a catastrophic accident once it is 

in operation. Were there concerns about the construction of the 

pipeline? What I am trying to get at is, the primary concern of the 

State Department. Is it the construction phase concern, is it an operation phase concern or is it a concern about some sort of a catastrophic event that would spill oil out into the environment? 

Ms. JONES. Our concern at this point, sir, was that we did not 

have time to do the analysis. All of the dimensions of the issue that 

you are talking about, we had been studying. Certainly the spills, 

certainly the issues around construction and operation, but the reason the decision was taken was because we did not have the 

time—— 

Mr. BARTON. But we fought and won World War II in less time 

than it has taken so far to evaluate this project. I mean, with all 

due respect, it is an insult to the American people to say that you 

need more time. There are 10 other agencies that reviewed this 

project, and correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is 

that the Corps of Engineers approved it, the Department of Agriculture approved it, the Energy Department approved it, the Department of Interior approved it, the Department of Transportation 

approved it, the Environmental Protection Agency, believe it or not, 

approved it, the Defense Department approved it, the Justice Department approved it, the Homeland Security Department apVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:04 Nov 28, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-10~1.ENE\112-10~1.ENE WAYNE
39 

proved it, and the Department of Commerce approved it. Only the 

State Department, which I believe by law is required to look at the 

international implications, since it is TransCanada, only the State 

Department did not approve it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. BARTON. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

When we first held a hearing on this subject a year ago, there 

were press reports that Koch Industries would be one of the ‘‘big 

winners’’ if this pipeline was constructed, and we asked Koch Industries whether this was true. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WAXMAN. No. 

And we were told—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. That they had no interest whatsoever 

in the pipeline, but then we learned that they have told the Canadian government they have a direct and substantial interest. Something doesn’t add up, and I have before me a document. This is the 

application for intervenor status in Canada, and this is an application from a company called Flint Hills Resources Canada of Flint 

Hills, which is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, and they said, 

‘‘What is your specific interest in this proceeding?’’ They said, 

‘‘Flint Hills Resources of Canada is among Canada’s largest crude 

oil purchasers, shippers and exporters, coordinating supply for its 

refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota. Consequently, Flint Hills has a 

direct and substantial interest in the application.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I would like this document to be made part of the 

record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

40 


76343.022

Application for Intervenor Status 
41 


76343.023
42 


76343.024
43 

Mr. WAXMAN. This document raises the issue that the statement 

that Koch Industries was not involved is inaccurate because they 

are involved and they claim to intervene in Canada because they 

are involved, and that is why I think we need to get more information. 

Now, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline poses substantial risks 

for Americans. This would pump tar sands almost 2,000 miles 

across the middle of America from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Even if the pipeline is rerouted around Nebraska, the Sand Hills, 

it will almost certainly still go through the Ogallala Aquifer, endangering water supplies for 2 million Americans, their farms and 

their businesses. The State Department’s analysis indicates that 

shifting to tar sands oil from crude oil would increase carbon pollution and that increase could be substantial. 

Now, these are risks. They are real and they are serious. The 

benefits for oil companies are also real. They will finally be able to 

export tar sands to Asia. Port Arthur is even a tax-free trade zone. 

But the benefits for Americans are a lot less clear. 

Dr. Jones, how many jobs would the pipeline generate, according 

to the State Department’s analysis? 

Ms. JONES. Economic analysis and economic consideration is part 

of the review we have been doing that was cut short with the deadline we faced, but in the final Environmental Impact Statement, we 

approximated based on the number of work crews that would be 

used to build the pipeline at 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs would 

be needed per year. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Per year. For how many years? 

Ms. JONES. For 2 years. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, the oil industry has been saying this would 

create 20,000 or even 100,000 jobs. They haven’t provided any information to us supporting those claims or challenging your estimate. Have they submitted information to you challenging your estimate? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, we have seen many different estimates 

on the number of jobs that would be created with this pipeline, and 

the job creation issue is a very complicated issue because—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have the oil companies challenged your data and 

your claim? 

Ms. JONES. Well, we have had a lot of challenges coming from 

a lot of different directions but that is the number that we have 

gotten through the—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me get back to my time because as soon as my 

time is up, that gavel is going to be smashed. 

The Washington Post claimed that this project will create tens of 

thousands of jobs. This was called a Two Pinocchio challenge when 

this statement was made. The economy is recovering. We need millions of new jobs to reduce unemployment and get the economy 

moving again. The President proposed an American jobs bill. Instead of doing that legislation, we are considering legislation to 

ram through one pipeline. I think that is a pitiful excuse for a jobs 

policy. 

I want to ask you about the review, Dr. Jones. Assuming that 

TransCanada reapplies for a permit and the State Department is 

still the relevant agency, you will need to assess the application in 

44 

light of a new route. Will you commit to examine other questions 

about addressing U.S. carbon emissions and climate change when 

you look at this question? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, should a new application be submitted, 

it would be reviewed without prejudice and we would look at all 

of the different aspects of the project, and as you mentioned, certainly greenhouse gases as well as the economic considerations and 

other broader environmental issues, foreign policy, everything 

would be considered, and we would just do that in all fairness and 

transparency as we have tried to do with this process, and it would 

be a new application. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your generosity on the time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

yield 1 minute of my time to my friend from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

You know, I have sat here for a year and watched folks on the 

left obsess about one of my constituents, Koch Industries. But 

today we reached a new place. We reached a place where they have 

now asked a private company to come talk about whether they 

happen to benefit from a particular permit application. This makes 

no sense to me. We are supposed to do good policy. We are not supposed to decide whether a particular company benefits or not. I 

can’t understand why whether Koch Industries benefits or not 

would be relevant to our decision. We should decide if this is in the 

American national interest. 

I would not for a moment suggest that we should bring Warren 

Buffett in to testify about whether his company and his rail interest would benefit from this permit application. I have read that he 

would be greatly benefited if we do not get that permit approved. 

I cannot believe that anyone on this committee would have their 

decision on whether or not to vote for this piece of legislation turn 

on whether Koch Industries or any other private company benefited or was harmed by this. This is not what we are supposed to 

be doing. 

The Constitution tells us we are supposed to do good public policy and we should not be making decisions based on whether one 

company or another benefits. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Sullivan didn’t want you to go 

over 1 minute. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Ms. Jones, for being here today. And 

it has taken, you know, 3 years, no decision, and my constituents 

are wondering about this, and I know the government is kind of 

slow, but when do you think you could make a decision? Do you 

think 10 years from now? Do we need to reapply, or when do you 

think you can make a decision? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, when we made the decision in November that we needed additional information, we put an estimate out 

45 

there that it would take until probably the first quarter of 2013, 

but at this time we recommended the denial because we didn’t 

have the time to do that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, these other departments seem to have approved. We heard from Mr. Barton about that. Why are they so 

nimble and you are so slow? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, I didn’t have a chance to respond to 

Congressman Barton’s comments, but we did not finish the national interest determination of consultations with other agencies 

so I was not clear as to what kind of approval that was referring 

to because we didn’t finish the process. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. OK. Ms. Jones, on January 11th, Secretary of 

State Hillary Clinton made remarks calling Iran’s Strait of Hormuz 

threats ‘‘provocative and dangerous.’’ She also called the strait ‘‘the 

lifeline that moves oil and gas around the world.’’ According to the 

Department of Energy, about 15.5 million barrels of oil a day, or 

a sixth of the global consumption, passes through the Strait of 

Hormuz between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. 

The fact is that crude oil futures have risen 7.4 percent since December 16th on increasing concern that Iran, OPEC’s second largest producer, would close the passage in the face of pressure from 

the U.S. and European governments to abandon a suspected nuclear weapon program. 

In light of these national and energy security threats from Iran, 

why has it taken 3 years for the State Department to review the 

Keystone XL pipeline? And do you agree that it is in our national 

interest for the United States to be more energy-independent from 

regimes such as Iran that want to harm our way of life, impose energy security threats, and would you agree that fluctuating oil 

prices demonstrate how our economic and national security is 

threatened by reliance on unstable sources of oil? And Ms. Jones, 

as you noted earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is concerned about Iran’s provocative actions in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Does the State Department share the same concerns with our good 

friend and neighbor, Canada? Yes or no on the Canada thing. 

Ms. JONES. Yes, we share a commitment with Canada to work 

towards energy security. It is one of the areas that is part of our 

very strong bilateral relationship. And as you point out, the whole 

issue of energy independence and energy security is a very important national priority and it was and is one of the considerations 

when pipelines are being reviewed. 

We did not have the opportunity to complete that review. We did 

not have a complete route for this pipeline. That is the reason why 

we took the action, made the recommendation that we did last 

week. It is only partially defined, this pipeline at this point. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, Ms. Jones, Keystone XL pipeline is a game 

changer for energy security. The pipeline when fully completed 

could transport nearly 1.3 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta and North Dakota to refineries in the Midwest and Gulf 

Coast. I believe it is in our national interest to move forward with 

this pipeline, and the State Department’s 3-year delay in considering this pipeline is a national travesty and I wish it would have 

happened a lot sooner. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

46 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning to the witnesses. 

First, in full disclosure, I support the building of the pipeline, 

and I also believe that given the proper timelines to look at all factors that eventually this application will be approved with recommendations. It is a matter of time, and I will agree that time 

is of the essence and that we need to move forthwith, however, not 

to rush it. We can still do this properly and address all the concerns that have been mentioned by the two witnesses. 

I believe that it will lead to energy security. It is my understanding if we do this, if we do this, the total production out of 

Canada and the United States will exceed the production of Saudi 

Arabia. That to me is energy security. I also believe it will result 

in more jobs in America just merely on the construction side. I also 

believe that it will lead to more jobs as a result of the United 

States being an exporter of fuel. 

Now, the only problem I have is the representation that is consistently made by members of this committee and on the floor that 

this is going to inure to the benefit of the American consumer in 

lower gasoline prices. That is not going to happen, and the sooner 

they acknowledge that it is a world market and the leading export 

for the United States last year, according to a story that appeared 

in the Associated Press on the last day of last year, was fuel. Fuel. 

And there are tremendous implications for the United States as a 

result of that. But as a result of world market forces and selling 

it to the highest bidder means that the American public is not 

going to be paying less for fuel, and we need to continue to emphasize alternative means and fuels and hybrids and more efficiency 

and conservation. 

The only real reservation I have is that we are placing all our 

eggs in one basket, and it may be the Keystone pipeline, and it is 

a distraction from pursuing more responsible energy policies that 

truly will lead to energy independence in this country but in a way 

that is safe and is cleaner, more efficient and cheaper to the American people. But this is part of it. I do believe that it is part of it. 

Now, Dr. Jones, there has not been made any final determination 

on the application, and is it clear from your testimony that the reason it has not been approved is that you have not been given sufficient time? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, sir, that is the reason. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Wright, let me ask you, now, you are not new 

to your job. I asked my staff to look into your background. I think 

you have been with FERC since the inception of the department 

that you worked with. 

Mr. WRIGHT. In 1979, I began at FERC. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Since 1979. And your testimony today that what 

we are attempting to do or the proposition to basically circumvent 

or introduce a new process at this point in time would not be workable in its present form. Is that correct? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, my testimony is based upon my experience 

with the siting of natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act. 

Given the strictures of the Natural Gas Act and my experience 

47 

with gas pipelines trying to extrapolate to oil pipelines, it doesn’t 

appear that would be enough time, as I mentioned, for procedures 

to be followed with public notice, public comment, time allowed to 

do an appropriate study under the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, this is not the first time that Congress is 

unhappy with basically one department or one agency, and we try 

to transfer it to another, and the other agency or department is 

telling us it is still not going to work with the wording and the 

process that we are proposing. So I am hoping that we are listening. I hope that we can all be on one page. Understand that if we 

do this properly and correctly, it will be beneficial to the people of 

the United States of America in every respect, but let us just give 

it the time that is necessary. 

And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So many questions, so 

little time. Thanks for you all coming. 

Last night, the President used a great phrase that was really 

coined by Republicans a couple years ago, which is, we need an allof-the-above energy strategy. In fact, I was sitting with my friend 

on the other side of the aisle and I looked at him and he goes, yes, 

he should have credited you, Shimkus, for that phrase. All of the 

above means all of the above—nuclear, solar, wind, natural gas, 

crude oil, energy security. So we applaud him for that statement 

based upon that definition. 

I want to continue to frame this debate. This is not a partisan 

debate by Members of the House of Representatives. When the first 

Keystone bill passed, 47 Democrats joined us in that piece of legislation. I think the vote was 279 to 147. This not also a debate 

against business versus labor because we had right at the same 

table you are at a strong group of friends from organized labor 

from the laborers to the operating engineers all supporting this, 

and why? They support it for job creation. 

Last night in the Speaker’s box, we had the owner and manufacturer of pipe. He has already built 600 miles of pipe from Arkansas, which is not part of your job calculations of job creation if you 

are just considering people who are putting the pipe in the ground. 

You fail to mention the people who built the pipe and the coke and 

the coal that goes into steelmaking nor do you consider the people 

who created the electric generators for the pumping stations. So 

that is where it is easy to say 20,000 jobs because, you know, we 

built pipelines. And you know how many people it takes for a mile 

pipe. So just multiply that by 1,700, 1,660, I think is the mileage. 

So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the job creation 

statistics and that is why organized labor, who is usually not real 

friendly to the Republican side, joined us, joined 47 Members on 

the Democrat side and was very, very supportive of this piece of 

legislation. So just on the record. 

Another issue, in the Speaker’s box, I had two refinery managers 

from close to my current district, and it will be in my new Congressional district, Ray Brooks from the Marathon oil refinery in Robinson, Illinois, hundreds of jobs, and they are already using oil sands 

48 

right now from the Keystone pipeline. So we have done research 

on moving oil crude, oil sands crude, through pipelines. We are already doing it. Also in attendance was Mr. Jay Churchill, the manager of the ConocoPhillips Company in Wood River. The 

ConocoPhillips refinery for the past 3 years had a $2 billion expansion to be able to refine and crack this new crude oil. Thousands 

of members of organized labor were on the ground during the worst 

economic times. That is why I am proud to continue to talk about 

the brown economy. 

You talk about energy security growing our country and what my 

friend Mr. Gonzalez said is absolutely correct. The brown economy 

creates more, better, high-paying jobs with great benefits and it 

doesn’t get the credit that it deserves. 

For Ms. Jones, because I guess I should ask a question. Did you 

know that in the Wall Street Journal January 4th that the Athabasca Oil Sand Company sold 40 percent of their oil sands interest? 

Do you know to which country? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. China. Do you know why? 

Ms. JONES. No. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because they will now have the controlling interest in that oil field so they can do what? Develop it. 

In political speak, what does profoundly disappointment mean in 

State Department international relations speak? What does profoundly disappointment mean? 

Ms. JONES. Sir, it usually means exactly what it says. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They are ticked off, I hear. In State Department 

language, they are very angry. 

Ms. JONES. That one. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think the Chinese are profoundly pleased. The 

Canadians, our allies, are profoundly disappointed, and I yield back 

my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to know 

my colleague from Illinois is now going to represent two refineries. 

I have still got three more up on you, so—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am going to work for more. I am going to work 

for more. 

Mr. GREEN. And I am also glad you are all for the above because 

I know you traditionally come from a coal area. I welcome you to 

the natural gas and oil caucus. 

Mr. Chairman, I realize this hearing’s primary focus is on H.R. 

3548, the North American Energy Access Act. I am a strong supporter of the Keystone pipeline and have been from the beginning. 

We need this product, and I think by stopping Keystone pipeline 

from being built, we are preventing the future production of the 

Canadian oil sands and mitigated all air quality concerns associated with its production. Environment and safety concerns need to 

be dealt with, but without this product, we will continue to feed 

monies into countries that hate us for everything we stand for. 

Having said that, I don’t think we should be rewriting a longstanding process for one pipeline, which is why I do not support 

this bill and particularly the approach to last week’s decision, but 

49 

I do have some questions about the process and I will use my time 

to address it. 

Ms. Jones, the Executive Branch exercises permitting authority 

over the construction and operation of pipelines, etc. for petroleum 

literally since the Executive Order in 1968. Is that correct? And the 

Executive Order from President Bush 13337 amended that authority but did not substantially alter the exercise of that authority 

with the delegation to the Secretary of State. Is that correct? 

Ms. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. Ms. Jones, how many permits have been issued 

under this order since 1968 for pipelines crossing international 

boundaries? 

Ms. JONES. I know of three. 

Mr. GREEN. I am sorry? 

Ms. JONES. I know of three at this point. I am not sure if that 

is accurate. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I guess because I have a district in Texas and 

most of our pipelines would come from Mexico instead of Canada, 

but it seems like there would be a number of them that crossed 

international borders between Mexico and the United States and, 

of course, Canada. 

What is the average time that these permits have taken? And it 

is my understanding that other pipelines of a similar nature have 

been granted permits between 18 and 24 months. 

Ms. JONES. That is right. It has been about 2 years or so. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. And I know the State Department issued a favorable Environmental Impact Statement in August on the pipeline, and then you held several public hearings as a part of the 

interagency review. And by the way, I appreciate the State Department a couple years ago granting my request for a hearing in eastern Harris County east of Houston—actually, it was in Congressman Poe’s district but it was right across the street from mine— 

where we could have our constituents talk about it. 

You held those hearings, and when you announced in November 

that you were delaying decision, you pointed to concerns raised by 

Nebraskans about the pipeline going through Sand Hills. My question centers on the language included in the payroll tax extension 

that allowed for TransCanada to continue on the alternative route 

through Nebraska. I understand the President’s frustration at having to decide in a 60-day time frame, but given the favorable EIS, 

the 57 special safety conditions agreed upon by the operator and 

the language allowing for the Nebraska issue to be dealt with, why 

were you not able to make the decision in 60 days? Because the average time was 18 to 24 months for previous pipelines, and this has 

been well over 3 years now. Why wasn’t 60 days enough time? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, we felt we did not have the information we needed, particularly related to alternative routes in Nebraska, and since we did not have that and we didn’t have all of 

the other related information that would go along with that route, 

and that is a significant portion of the pipeline. So it was an arbitrary timeline and we knew it would take more time for us to do 

the analysis. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, granted, it was arbitrary but again, previous 

permits have taken 18 to 24 months. Now, this is a longer pipeline 

50 

than others. I know the original Keystone pipeline that goes into 

Congressman Shimkus’s district and Indiana is much shorter, but 

it just seems like 3–1/2 years is plenty of time, and to give someone 

60 days and say OK, you have done all these environmental studies, you need to make a decision, even though the pipeline, I have 

to admit, my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, may have a different opinion, but there are pipelines crossing Sand Hills right 

here. Did the EIS find that out? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir. We didn’t see any oil pipelines crossing the 

Sand Hills. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. There are six pipelines, and I am not sure 

whether they are natural gas or what product they have, but there 

are already six pipelines, and I understand this pipeline route 

would be in that easement that is already being used by other 

products, and so that is the frustration. 

And Mr. Chairman, I know I am almost—in fact, I am out of 

time. I don’t know if we are going to have a second round or not, 

but I would be glad to submit follow-up questions. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I doubt that we are because we are going to be 

voting on the floor, and then I think there is going to be a ceremony for Ms. Giffords. 

Mr. GREEN. I would like to, like we always do, if we could submit 

questions, because I didn’t even get to FERC but to the State Department. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome our witnesses today. This is interesting. I have been reading 

through the FEIS to a certain extent. I know you are all quite familiar with it. 

On November 12, 1973, the United States House of Representatives under Democrat control took a similar sort of action in approving the TransAlaska pipeline on a vote of 361 to 14 and 60. 

They deemed that that pipeline met the standards. The Senate 

took it up and approved it on a 49–49 tie, and then Vice President 

Spiro Agnew cast the deciding vote, and that pipeline continued. 

Now, that was 800 miles of pipeline. It brought oil out of Prudhoe 

Bay and it was about that period that we had the Arab oil embargo. President Nixon at the time said, you know, we have got to do 

something about using America’s energy reserves, and at least the 

pipeline came along and was deemed approved by Congress. 

So this is not an unheard-of act to grant sufficiency. Now, maybe 

in the State Department you have not been involved in one of 

these. I get that. As somebody that represents a district that has 

55 percent Federal and has watched things over the years, I believe 

in the Clinton administration there were circumstances involving 

forestry where NEPA was deemed to have been sufficiently 

achieved in a cleanup down in Texas after a windstorm, and I 

think even in North Dakota, maybe South Dakota after a fire. It 

is not unheard of and the Congress has done it before. 

I want to get on the issue of jobs. In your final EIS on 3.10.58, 

it says that there is $7 billion to construct the proposed project. We 

don’t have any disagreement on that number, do we? Seven billion. 

And then you talk about the number of jobs, and in the FEIS, it 

51 

talks about hiring of 5,000 to 6,000 workers over the 3-year construction period. The related income benefits would be substantial—these are the words of the FEIS—and the proposed project 

would generate $349.4 million in total wages—that is in the 

FEIS—and if the maximum construction workforce were 6,000 people, a total of $419.28 million in wages would be generated. 

You also talked about the effect beyond that. These numbers are 

only related just to the actual construction of the pipeline, correct? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I was trying to find table 2.3.2–1 to get into 

the more localized, because the 5,000 to 6,000 jobs aren’t the only 

jobs related to approval of this construction of the pipeline, are 

they? 

Ms. JONES. That is right. I didn’t get a chance to speak to the 

indirect jobs. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to give you that chance right now because I believe—I mean, I have a company—not I, I mean there is 

a company in Oregon that is building the pumps for the XL pipeline. Could you talk to us, tell me what the FEIS says relative to 

the total number of jobs both construction direct and all the indirect jobs associated were the President to approve this. What is 

your best estimate? 

Ms. JONES. We were in the process of analyzing the indirect jobs, 

and there are multiple models that people use for that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. 

Ms. JONES. We did not complete that because of the timeline. We 

were candid, and we have—— 

Mr. WALDEN. It is not in the FEIS, the final Environmental Impact Statement? 

Ms. JONES. We have the direct job numbers in there. We don’t 

have the indirect. We were looking at that through the national interest determination and engaging with other agencies. We have 

some rough estimates that are similar to what the applicant is saying in terms of—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And what would those be? 

Ms. JONES. I think it was approximately 35,000 per year. 

Mr. WALDEN. For how many years? 

Ms. JONES. Well, that is another point of discussion. One 

timeline was extraordinarily long, and there has been a lot of confusion about using person-years versus particular jobs. But we do 

not—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, how then in the executive summary of the 

FEIS does it say ‘‘operation post project would also result in longterm to permanent beneficial socioeconomic impacts including employment and income benefits resulting from long-term hires and 

local operating expenditures and increased property tax revenues. 

An estimated $140.5 million annual property tax revenues would 

be generated by the proposed project.’’ Somebody has done some of 

that to get to that, right? 

Ms. JONES. Yes. Some of that is in the FEIS but that is only one 

piece of the analysis, and we did not finish the rest of it. We recognize that the economic impact is a very important consideration 

but we did not finish that because we do not have the complete 

route for this pipeline. 

52 

Mr. WALDEN. My time is expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I just think the discussion over this Keystone 

pipeline, the back and forth has been unfortunate and it sort of 

mirrors the discussions we have on energy policy in general. People 

talk about the need for us to have an all-of-the-above strategy but 

you hear that said a lot but in reality and in practice, this seems 

to always be an either-or strategy on this committee when we have 

energy debates. If you are for coal or if you are for oil, then you 

can’t be solar and wind, and vice versa. And the reality is, we do 

need to do all of this if we are going to have energy security in the 

country, and we need to pay particular attention to these nascent 

technologies in clean energy that are slowly but surely over time 

going to start to replace fossil fuels because, as we all know, fossil 

fuels aren’t an infinite supply. They are a supply that is going to 

go down, and something has to take its place. Now, it is not going 

to take its place tomorrow. It is not going to take its place even 

5 or 10 years from now. But if we don’t start making investments 

in clean energy now, we are going to be in trouble down the road. 

So we need to do that also. 

But having said that, it is in our interest to develop domestic 

supplies in this country and also to continue the relationship that 

we have with Canada. This pipeline is a small piece of that puzzle, 

and let us not delude ourselves, as Mr. Gonzalez said, that this is 

a silver bullet for anything. This is not going to lower people’s gas 

prices, and this pipeline will not result in us having to no longer 

buy oil from OPEC nations. That is just not accurate and we 

shouldn’t make people think that that is the case. 

You know, there is going to be 800,000 tons of steel pipe in this 

project. I wish I could sit here and say that that steel is coming 

from the United States of America. Unfortunately, TransCanada 

has contracted with an Indian multinational company, Welspun 

Corp Limited, and a Russian company to manufacture the steel 

pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline. Now, as someone coming from 

Pittsburgh where we still make steel and headquarters of U.S. 

Steel, I would feel a lot better about this project too if just one little 

drop of U.S. steel was being made in this pipeline. Now, it is unfortunate that it isn’t. 

Having said all of that, I think that probably what has doomed 

this application more than anything was the politics that has been 

played when we passed the Payroll Tax Act to put in this 60-day 

clause and put this gun to the President’s head and said you have 

to make this decision in 60 days, and it is just pure election-year 

politicking that has been going on on this issue. I agree with Mr. 

Gonzalez that eventually after the environmental reviews are done 

with this and we make sure that we have a route that is environmentally safe and all these things are checked, that this project 

should move forward but not until we do that, and I don’t think 

we are there yet. 

This legislation in front of us from a good friend of mine, Lee 

Terry, who I have tremendous affection and respect for, once again 

imposes this artificial deadline of 30 days and takes this out of the 

53 

hands of the State Department to an agency that does gas pipelines but not oil pipelines. I think it is a misguided effort. 

So with the time I have left, I do want to ask a couple questions. 

Secretary Jones, I know we had planned earlier to have the Nebraska DEQ with us today but for whatever reason Mr. Linder is 

not appearing today, but I note in his testimony he lays out a 

timeline for his State intended to follow to establish this new route 

through Nebraska and complete any necessary environmental reviews and allow for public comment. Mr. Linder said in his statement that ‘‘If this were done on an aggressive schedule, a new 

route could be approved by October of 2012 at the earliest.’’ Ms. 

Jones, does the State Department believe that the 60-day timeline 

laid out in the payroll tax bill has allowed for a complete recommendation from the State of Nebraska on the new route for the 

pipeline? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir, we feel that we do need the time that Mr. 

Linder had put out in his estimate. We had talked to both the Department of Environmental Quality as well as to the applicant and 

the estimates of time that came in from all of them were within 

the same range. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Has the State Department ever recommended a pipeline be in the national interest without having the 

entire proposed route before them? Have you ever done that before? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir. 

Mr. DOYLE. Was there any indication that the State of Nebraska 

would be able to complete a modified route proposal by February 

21, 2011, which was the deadline imposed in the Payroll Tax Act? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir, and that is why we felt we could not go forward. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Did this lack of a complete route proposal—I see my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, Mr. Doyle, I am trying to get through everybody before we have to go vote because we are not going to be 

able to come back, so thank you. 

Mr. Terry, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have great affection 

and respect for my friend from Pittsburgh. Just to add some clarification, I think it is about 60 to 65 percent of the steel in this pipeline is U.S. steel. In fact, Mr. Shimkus mentioned that. The reason 

why Mr. Linder isn’t here is because our State Department, Dr. 

Jones, objected to him being on the panel because it was beneath 

them to have a State official. So that is why he is not here and that 

his testimony—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Would my friend yield for just one second? 

Mr. TERRY. Well, I have got a lot of questions. There is an email 

chain verifying that. I may have put a little editorial to it. 

Let me just state that I am profoundly disappointed that the 

State Department objected to Mr. Linder being on the panel, and 

therefore he is not. 

Now, for the record, I would like to introduce a media note from 

the State Department April 15th saying ‘‘In conclusion, the U.S. 

State Department expects to make a decision whether to grant or 

deny the permit before the end of 2011.’’ Another one making the 

same statement of March 15, 2011, an Executive Office of the ManVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:04 Nov 28, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-10~1.ENE\112-10~1.ENE WAYNE
54 

agement of Budget from the White House saying the same thing, 

that they are working with the State Department and all entities 

are working diligently and will have all of the information they 

need and will be able to make their decision by December 31, 2011. 

I would like to submit those for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

55 


76343.025

State Department Announces Next Steps in Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Process 

Media Note 

Office of the Spokesman 

Washington, DC 

March 15, 2011 

The US. Department of State expects to request public comment on a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in mid-April The Supplemental EIS will seek public comment on 

Issues that will benefit/rom further public input. A Federal Register notice, to be issued in the mid-April time period, will 

provide further detailS 

Keystone XL is a proposed 1700-mile oil pipeline from the U.S.-Canadian border in Montana, through Cushing, 

Oklahoma, to refineries on the U,S. Gulf Coast 

In order to provide interested parties and the public the maximum opportunity to comment on this important project, the 

Department will continue to solicit public comment The State Department has held over 20 public comment meetings 

along the pipeline route in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well as in WaShington, D.C, 

The public will have 45 days to comment on the Supplemental Draft EIS anerthe antiCipated mid-April comment period 

begins. Following issuance 0/ a Final EIS, the State Department will solicit public comment and hest a public meeting 

in WaShington. D.C" before It makes a determination under Executive Order 13337 on whether issuance a/this permit 

is in the U,S, national interest 

The U,S, Department of Stale Expects to make a decision on whether to grant or deny the permit before the end Of 2011. 

PRN: 2011/400 
56 


76343.026

State Department Releases Keystone XL Pipeline Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Media Note 

Office of the Sookesm.n 

Washington, DC 

April 15, 2011 

The U S Department of State posted the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 

Keystone XL pipeline on April 15. The Supplemental Is available on the State Department's website: 

http:ltwww.keystonepipellne-xl,state,gov. 

Keystone Xl is a proposed 1700-mile oil pipeline from the U.S,-Canadian border In Montana, through Cushing, 

OklahOma, to refineries onthe U.S Gulf Coast 

... Federal Register Notice will be Issued on April 22, marking the opening of a 45-day public comment period and 

providing details about how to file a comment. 

Once the Department of State issues a Final EIS, interested federal agencies, such as the Department Of Energy and 

the Environmental Protection Agency, will have 90 days to provide theJf opinion on whether issuance of a Presidential 

Permit would be in the national interest. 

The U,S. Department of State expects to make a deciSion on whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of 2011 

;:011/591 
57 

Then the point here is that we are using the State of Nebraska 

as the excuse to delay the decision until after the election. I don’t 

think it is any coincidence that the State Department and the entities feel like they would be in a position to make a decision within 

about 60 days after the election. I think the point—or they said in 

the first quarter of 2013. It certainly flies in the face of all of their 

previous statements. And I read a quote from Environment News 

Service. I don’t have the date handy on it, but it is after the Nebraska legislature met. ‘‘Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of 

State, said, ’I am confident that the Department and Nebraska authorities would be able to efficiently work together in preparing 

any documents necessary to examine the alternative routes in the 

State of Nebraska that satisfy the Federal laws and any State law 

of Nebraska.’’’ So they were all set and ready to go with the State 

of Nebraska. Now, if Mr. Linder would have been allowed to participate in this hearing today but for the objections of the State Department, he would have said ‘‘On December 1, 2011, we contacted 

the State Department to begin to explore the process of entering 

into an MOU between two agencies which would outline responsibilities and define a schedule. We received the first draft of the 

agreement from the State Department within the next 2 weeks and 

exchanged comments to which what we considered to be an executable document which we submitted to the State Department in December 2011. No further progress had been made on that front.’’ I 

think it is odd or interesting that the State Department in the middle of December 2011 decided that they weren’t going to work on 

this project anymore and then come in here and say they don’t 

have enough time. In the legal field, there is a doctrine of clean 

hands. You can’t be the one delaying it and then object to the 

delays. 

May I also submit for the record the actual language of the bill 

that was signed into law that created the Nebraska exemption? Let 

me wait for just a second on that one, because as I understand 

from reading your report to Congress, you were objecting because 

not later than 60 days after the enactment of this act the President 

acting through the Secretary of State shall grant the permit under 

Executive Order 13337 for the Keystone XL pipeline. You said 

many times in your testimony and answers today, Dr. Jones, that 

it is that 60-day requirement, the absurdity that—darn. But yet 

there is Nebraska exemption in here that specifically said that is 

carved out and that 60 days for Nebraska doesn’t run until all of 

the reports are done and certified by the Governor. Darn. I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Sorry. We are going to have some votes. 

Dr. Burgess, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Jones, according to some information that I have, October 15, 

2010, Secretary of State Clinton said she was inclined to approve 

Keystone’s permit. On October 31, 2011—that is over a year later— 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated, ‘‘The fact is, this 

is a decision that will be made by the State Department or is 

housed within the State Department.’’ The very next day, President 

Obama said the decision would rest with him. In the President’s 

announcement last week to reject the pipeline’s permit, he said he 

58 

had accepted the State Department’s recommendations to do so. So 

everything seems to be pointing to you guys at the State Department. So can you tell the committee who was the one who made 

the call, made the decision to reject the Keystone XL permit? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, based on the act, the Payroll Tax Cut 

Act, which had specific language in it regarding what the President 

needed to do in a certain time, we, the State Department, recommended to the President—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Who is ‘‘we’’? 

Ms. JONES. ‘‘We’’ is the Deputy Secretary through the Secretary 

to the President. 

Mr. BURGESS. And the name of that person is? 

Ms. JONES. Bill Burns. 

Mr. BURGESS. Bill Burns was the one who made the decision? 

Ms. JONES. No, he recommended to the President that this decision be taken, and the President decided. 

Mr. BURGESS. Did the White House exert any influence over the 

State Department’s recommendation? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is an individual there that is missing then from this hearing today that 

perhaps we should ask if we should be able to submit some questions to that individual. 

You know, we all know and the State Department in particular 

knows what is going on in the Strait of Hormuz. I was in Iraq in 

August, and although our military presence now there has wound 

down, there is still a big State Department footprint in Iraq, isn’t 

there? In Basra, where I was, there is in fact one of the largest 

State Department operations, and the reason, my understanding, 

the reason is because that is where Iraq kind of narrows down 

going to the Gulf and all the oil flowing from the southern part of 

that country will go through Basra and the four pipelines that go 

through there, so the State Department felt they needed to have 

a large presence there. I don’t get it. Why do we have to have— 

I mean, there are jobs there but I would rather have the pipeline 

through Texas where, yes, we can be hard to deal with sometimes 

but we are not nearly as hard to deal with as people in the Middle 

East. 

So just food for thought. Let us build this pipeline where—you 

know, why make it hard on ourselves. Why make it hard on our 

country. We need American jobs. We need American energy. This 

seems so straightforward. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield, if he wants the time, to Mr. 

Pompeo. Are you good? Mr. Terry, did you get to finish everything 

you needed to do? 

Mr. TERRY. Generally. 

Mr. BURGESS. Generally? I will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Washington State, Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. My understanding is, there is potential 

that some of the product that would flow through this proposed 

pipeline could be exported. It could be used and consumed by other 

countries rather than consumers in the United States. Under this 

59 

bill, would the United States government be able to assess the impact of that export on consumer prices in the United States at all? 

Ms. JONES. Congressman, I assume you mean the bill that is proposed here? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. 

Ms. JONES. I can’t answer that question as to how that bill would 

approach it. That consideration was one of the considerations in 

the national interest determination that we were in the process of 

doing when we were given this timeline and didn’t have a route to 

really analyze and to have an informed decision. 

Mr. INSLEE. So I guess the question is, right now, my understanding is, this product is being used by American consumers in 

their gas tanks in their cars. If it goes to the Gulf and then is exported, other people around the world will be bidding on it. We will 

be bidding against them for the gasoline when we consume it domestically. In other words, there will be another person who will 

be bidding on the product in the export market. I think that has 

the potential to affect the price we pay at the pump because now 

we are competing for the same product with someone else who 

might be bidding more, which then drives up our prices potentially. 

Now, I don’t know the answer to that question but I just wonder, 

under this bill, would the U.S. government assess that as part of 

this decision-making process? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I would say as part of the NEPA analysis, as part 

of the overall national interest analysis, the socioeconomic impacts, 

that would probably be something that would be assessed. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentleman yield back his time? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. I tell you what, we have a vote on the floor. 

We are not going to be able to come back. We have a lot of people 

still wanting to ask questions, so I am going to give everybody 3 

minutes in an effort to try to get through everybody. 

So Mr. Bilbray, you are recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Jones, what is your experience on these cross-border issues? 

How long have you been working on cross-border issues for the 

State Department? 

Ms. JONES. I have been at the State Department since August 

2009. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Some of us that have more than a passing interest in cross-border and environmental problems, so let me just 

say, this is a 1,700-mile pipeline. We have 2,300,000 miles of pipeline in this country. How much jurisdiction does the State Department have over that 2 million-plus pipe? 

Ms. JONES. The State Department is involved only in permits 

that cross international boundaries. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Just across that line. OK. Then any environmental 

impact report or statement obviously looks at the impact of the noproject option. What is the emissions that would be created—well, 

first of all, let me back up. What is the ability under NAFTA for 

Canada to bring trucks across the border? 

Ms. JONES. I don’t think I can answer that question, sir. 

Mr. BILBRAY. It is pretty unrestricted, though? 

60 

Ms. JONES. Um-hum. 

Mr. BILBRAY. So the no-project option on a pipeline is to train or 

truck it across that area. What is the total emissions annually if 

we went to that option rather than using a pipeline? 

Ms. JONES. I couldn’t give you that number, but I do know that 

in the final Environmental Impact Statement, there was some 

analysis done that if the pipeline wasn’t built, it was likely that 

other modes of transportation would pick up and continue to move 

crude. 

Mr. BILBRAY. And wouldn’t consider the fact that not only would 

those modes, train and truck, be putting out emissions but those 

emissions are diesel emissions, which have been categorized as a 

toxic emission above and beyond what dioxin is. Did they also point 

out that trains are three times more dangerous with fatalities than 

a pipeline and that trucks are, I think the latest number is 87 

times more dangerous than a pipeline. So my question is this: Did 

you consider the fact that the no-project option or the denial or the 

delay, the denial would end up having more emissions total that 

we reflected by use of truck and train? 

Ms. JONES. The denial that was taken last week was based on 

the fact that we didn’t have the time to do all the analysis that you 

are talking about. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Let me just say this. I am very happy to see 

you approve, the President approve a cross-border agreement with 

a private company to be able to operate airports across the border, 

and the fact is, just because the gentleman who is financing it is 

a billionaire from Chicago, I am not going to attack that agreement, but I would ask, when you did this agreement at Alta Mesa, 

did you consider the increased emissions and the global impact of 

Mexico’s air operations that would be operating in relationship to 

this border crossing that you approved, that the President approved just recently? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Go ahead and finish. 

Ms. JONES. I wasn’t involved with that. I can’t respond to that. 

I could go back and get more from the Department. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I would appreciate that. Thank you for approving 

that project. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Scalise, you are recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having 

this hearing. I thank the witnesses for coming. 

I think what irritates me, what irritates a lot of people that are 

concerned about the economy, getting the economy back on track 

and creating jobs is that the President made a political decision to 

throw away 20,000 American jobs and to hurt our relationship with 

Canada, who is a strong, strong friend, maybe one of the best 

friends of America in the world. Canada had been trying to get this 

project done for over 3 years. Is it true, Ms. Jones, that Canada 

submitted their application for this Keystone XL pipeline back in 

September 2008? 

Ms. JONES. TransCanada, the company, submitted it then, yes. 

Mr. SCALISE. So, you know, you sit here at the table and the 

President said this time and time again, he didn’t have enough 

time. He has had 40 months. You know, if you look at the original 

Keystone pipeline, because this is a separate Keystone, Keystone 

61 

XL, the original Keystone pipeline was approved back in 2008 after 

less than 2 years of review. It doesn’t take 40 months to review a 

project like this. And so at some point in time you have to decide 

whether you are going to fish or cut bait, and ultimately, that is 

what Congress decided in a bipartisan way. It is not a partisan 

issue. It is not a House versus Senate issue. It is one of the few 

things we actually came together on and agreed, Republicans and 

Democrats, House and Senate, said Mr. President, stop wasting 

time, stop delaying this project for political purposes, make a decision, yes or no, and then unfortunately, he used you all because 

you all back in August of last year, you all said this is something 

you should do. Hillary Clinton back in 2010, the quote was, ‘‘We 

are inclined to do so’’ when asked about approving the Keystone 

pipeline in 2010. And then you go through the timeline and then 

you get to August of last year where you all came with your report 

and you basically said this is something that we should do, we 

don’t see any real problems with the Keystone pipeline. I will use 

the exact—‘‘There would be no significant impacts.’’ That was State 

Department on Keystone back in August of 2011. And what happened after that? What happened after that is in November, on November 7, 2011, radical environmentalists went and had a big rally 

at the White House. You know, Darryl Hanna got arrested real famously, a bunch of radical environmentalists went and said Mr. 

President, don’t approve the Keystone pipeline. They threatened 

his reelection. And gee whiz, coincidentally, 3 days after this rally 

by radical environmentalists, the President then reversed his 

course and says we are going to push the decision on Keystone 

until after the election. He is one who gave the arbitrary date, not 

because of environmental reasons, because of political reasons because he was getting beaten up by radical environmentalists who 

didn’t want this thing approved at all so he said I will just kick 

the can until after the election and maybe this will go away, and 

Canada said, we can’t wait that long because China wants the oil, 

they want to do something, they want to participate with us. But 

instead, the President said no, we don’t want the jobs, let China 

get that oil, and now of course we go to the statement by the prime 

minister of Canada who said they are profoundly disappointed with 

this decision. He has hurt our relationships and hurt our national 

security with a political decision. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Markey, you are recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

We have been repeatedly told that we need to get over the concerns about the pipeline and the environment because the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence 

on oil imported from unfriendly Middle Eastern nations. 

TransCanada’s application for its permit even states that the proposed pipeline will serve the national interest of the United States 

by providing a secure and reliable source of Canadian crude oil to 

meet the growing demands by refineries and markets in the United 

States. However, some have questioned these assertions of energy 

security benefits, citing plans by Gulf Coast refineries with whom 

TransCanada has entered into long-term sales contracts to re-export diesel and other fuels made from the Keystone crude to Latin 

America, Europe and beyond. In fact, nearly all of these refineries 

62 

where the Keystone crude will be sent to are located in Port Arthur, Texas, which is designated as a foreign trade zone. This 

means that if these refineries re-exported diesel or other fuel, they 

wouldn’t even have to pay U.S. taxes on these exports. 

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper 

said that when you look at the Iranians threatening to block the 

Strait of Hormuz, I think that that just illustrates how critical it 

is that supply for the United States to be North American. But in 

December when I asked the president of TransCanada whether he 

would agree to ensure that the oil and refined products stay here 

in this country instead of re-exporting it, he said no, sitting right 

at this table. In other words, if the permit for this pipeline is legislatively mandated by this bill, the United States may just become 

the middleman for shipping products made from some of the dirtiest crude oil on earth to foreign markets around the world. 

Secretary Jones, does the process the administration was following to determine whether Keystone XL was in the national interest allow for the consideration of issues like whether the project 

would reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, sir, that is one of the considerations when we 

look at energy security. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. So if the Republicans hadn’t forced the 

administration to deny the permit because it wasn’t given enough 

time to review it, the administration could have issued a permit 

that required the Keystone oil and fuels to be sold only in the 

United States. Isn’t that right? 

Ms. JONES. I am not sure of that, sir, what we can restrict in 

terms of exports. 

Mr. MARKEY. You could restrict it? 

Ms. JONES. No, we would have to study that. I don’t think that 

we can restrict exports, but that is something we would continue 

to study. 

Mr. MARKEY. That could be in the national interest. Is that correct? To keep the oil here. 

Ms. JONES. We would have to study it in regard to export. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, could it be in the national interest, though, potentially to keep the oil here? 

Ms. JONES. It would certainly be a consideration but we were unable to really study all that. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is right, so we never got a chance to look at 

that. 

Now, for both Ms. Jones and Mr. Wright, does the Republican 

legislation provide FERC with explicit authority to issue a permit 

that contains a requirement that the oil or fuels have to be sold 

in the United States? Does it contain that provision? 

Mr. WRIGHT. I did not see that explicitly. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you, Ms. Jones? 

Ms. JONES. No, I do not see that there. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Well, make no mistake, I think this is a pipeline—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. Out of the United States and into 

other—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Olson, you are recognized for—— 

63 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair for the recognition. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We are going to have to go down to 2 minutes 

because we have, like, 4 minutes left on the floor. Three hundred 

and twelve people still have not voted, and I want everyone to get 

an opportunity to say something. So 2 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I will be quick. I promise. I appreciate the witnesses’ 

time today. 

We all know the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline: 20,000 

jobs, energy from Canada as opposed to Middle Eastern oil, national security and energy security. And as a former naval aviator 

who has flown in the Persian Gulf in what we call strait transits, 

right through the Strait of Hormuz, I have unique perspective on 

Iran, and we all know that Iran has threatened to close the straits, 

stopping 30 percent of the world’s supply of oil from getting to market. Now, I can’t expand upon this enough but that is a very real 

threat. The straits are narrow, about 9 miles wide in some places, 

and they are shallow. If a vessel would sink, vessels in the middle 

of the straits, they would be blocked for months, if not years. In 

fact, three of our 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have been deployed to the region because our Commander in Chief, our President, sees the threat as real. 

The State Department has a history of approving new pipelines 

in the interest of national security because of political tensions. 

The most recent example is the Alberta Clipper pipeline in the 

Midwest part of the United States. This is another Canadian pipeline. And let me read you a section from the record of decision for 

the Alberta Clipper pipeline, and this is a quote: ‘‘The Department 

of State has determined through review of the Alberta Clipper 

project application that the Alberta Clipper project would serve the 

national interest. In a time of considerable political tensions in 

other major oil-producing region countries, by providing additional 

access to a proximate, stable, secure supply of crude oil with minimal transportation requirements from a reliable ally and trading 

partner, the United States, which we have free trade agreements 

that further augments the security of this energy supply.’’ Why is 

the situation now different? Yes or no, Ms. Jones, is the situation 

now more dire than the situation was when we approved the Alberta Clipper pipeline? Yes or no. 

Ms. JONES. Energy security is still a major priority for this country and this administration. However, we did not reject this project 

on the merits. It was an issue that we did not have time. Those 

considerations you raised would be considered if we had the entire 

route and if we had the time to conduct the process that we feel 

the American people need to have. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. Time is expired. 

Mr. OLSON. Ma’am, with all due respect, you changed your mind 

in October. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. McKinley, you are recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just some quick questions, and perhaps if you could just respond, 

Ms. Jones, in writing to us rather than take time. The first is, 

could you submit to us a chronological order of the process since 

it began in September of 2008, why in God’s name it would take 

3–1/2 years? I just know from the private sector, firms would be 

64 

fired for taking that long to go through a process. Can you get back 

to us as to whether the railroads in Montana and North Dakota 

and Oklahoma, are those captive railroads? I don’t know whether 

they are not. Do you understand the term? 

Ms. JONES. I think we will have to get an answer back to you 

on that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Sure. I am not expecting you to answer these 

things right now. So I am asking for the record if you will get back 

to us on that on whether or not these are captive railroads? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, we will. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And can you also respond, please, to the editorial 

that was in the Investment and Business Daily back on November 

16th in which the editorial board there is suggesting that there 

could be a link between the railroad systems and this decision, especially given that it is a political decision. We all know that. Anyone who would postpone this until after the election is already crying out, this is a political decision. So since they are linking it to 

two major individuals, global figures, I would like your response 

back to that or perhaps even the person that made the ultimate decision to cancel this project. Because it wasn’t based on the time 

frame. We understand that, and I think the American public is 

going to come to understand that. But thank you. If you get back 

to us in writing, I would appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Gardner, you are recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Is job creation the number one national interest? 

Yes or no. Is job creation the number one national interest? 

Ms. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Does this pipeline create jobs? 

Ms. JONES. Yes, but the number is—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Just a yes or no question, and you denied the 

pipeline. You recommended not moving forward with the pipeline. 

Ms. JONES. We denied it based on the time we were given. 

Mr. GARDNER. You denied it, and it is your number one national 

interest so you acted at odds with the number one national interest. 

Ms. JONES. Sir, we were reviewing the job situation, the economic issues as part of the review. 

Mr. GARDNER. I will accept that. You turned it down. That is 

fine. 

I want to go back to this amount of paper here, the final Environmental Impact Statement from August 2011. the EIS identified 

a particular route as the preferred alternative? Yes or no. 

Ms. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. And among the other alternatives you considered, 

you considered a no-action alternative? Yes or no. 

Ms. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. And the final EIS expressly concluded the preferred alternative was way better than not building a pipeline at 

all? Yes or no. 

Ms. JONES. Yes, but there was more to that. These are simple 

pieces coming out of the FEIS. 

Mr. GARDNER. ‘‘As a result of considerations, the Department of 

State does not regard the no-action alternative to be preferable to 

the proposed project.’’ That is from the final EIS. Thank you. 

65 

The reason you concluded that all things considered, transporting the oil in a state-of-the-art pipeline is better than shipping 

it by rail, truck and cargo ships because it is better than shipping 

it from the Middle East. Yes or no? Yes. Thank you. You have to 

agree with that, it is better to ship from Canada. 

Ms. JONES. Yes, I do. It is part of energy security. 

Mr. GARDNER. But if we delay this, if the White House delays it, 

we run the risk of no pipeline at all. Your delays run the risk of 

no pipeline. You said jobs are the number one national interest, 

and yet you said to the White House we don’t want to do this. 

Ms. JONES. We have to work with the pipeline where we have 

the route and we would do a comprehensive—— 

Mr. GARDNER. You have said jobs are the number one national 

interest and you have said no to this. These delays risk the killing 

of this pipeline, and so you will end up with no pipeline, which is 

not the preferred alternative as the Department of State has already said in their final EIS. So if you do this, you are going to 

have none of the jobs. You are going to kill the job. You are going 

to have none of the energy, and China wins. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Pompeo, you are recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I can do it in 

1 minute. 

I have one question. Ms. Jones, are you lacking any information 

that you were constrained for time about how this impacts a particular private company? That is, are you interested in how this 

might or might not affect any particular private company? Is it relevant to your decision at all? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir. The issue is, the route through Nebraska and 

all of the impacts that possibly could have. 

Mr. POMPEO. So testimony about how any private company 

would be impacted would be irrelevant to your decision-making 

process. 

Ms. JONES. Sir, we are looking at the route as we had explained. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

One last statement. Mr. Waxman suggested that because Koch 

Industries had filed as an intervenor before the Canadian National 

Energy Board, that that suggested that they must have a financial 

interest in this transaction. That is just false. This notion that they 

have an interest there has been shredded. There are many, many 

intervenors including the Sierra Club of Canada, who I don’t think 

has a financial interest in the Keystone XL pipeline, the Alberta 

Federation of Labor, the Communication, Energy and Paper Workers of Canada. This is a silly concept, and I want to make sure the 

record reflected that this mere intervenor status makes no indication about whether any company has an interest in this pipeline 

at all. 

With that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I am sitting here kind of curious. The State Department keeps talking about its studies in Nebraska but isn’t your job 

supposed to determine what the impact is because it is international and what the impact is on the international relationship 

with our friends in Canada? 

66 

Ms. JONES. Because we have the authority for the permitting—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I understand you have the authority for the permitting but you got all this done by the agencies that would normally do that. Isn’t your job as the State Department to focus on 

the relationships with our foreign friends and not to be interfering 

in internal decisions made by other agencies? 

Ms. JONES. Our job in this situation is to look at the entire pipeline for the impact it could have on the country. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So everything these people did was worthless? 

Ms. JONES. No, sir. That is important analytical information. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, then, why do you have to redo it all? 

Ms. JONES. We don’t have the route through Nebraska. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I really believe that this was a political decision. 

You are not supposed to comment on that, and I understand that. 

But I believe that you had the President in a political quandary 

with labor versus radical environmentalists and he had to delay 

until after the election. That is what I believe and that is what I 

believe the evidence shows. I am not asking for a comment. 

I would say to you, more oil refined in the United States, particularly when it is coming from a closer supply, means more jobs in 

the United States, more profits in the United States, more taxes 

paid to the United States and more U.S. supply available. All of 

those things I think are good things, and because you are from the 

State Department, I would say that we have damaged our relationship with a good ally and a close neighbor and friend, and to me, 

that seems counter to the purpose of the State Department and all 

of this would indicate that everything that you all are doing is 

counter to the interest of the United States of America, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That concludes today’s hearing. I want to thank 

the two witnesses for being with us today, and the record will remain open for 10 days for additional documents, and some questions were submitted to you all and we would appreciate you all 

getting that information back to us. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

67 


76343.027

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Chairman Fred Upton (#1) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

Isn't it true that the provision in the Payroll Tax Bill expressly contemplate 

the national interest determination being made with a Nebraska reroute that 

would be a work in progress? Do you understand that the congressional 

intent behind this subsection was for the Nebraska reroute to not be the 

cause for further delay? 

Answer: 

I cannot speculate on the congressional intent behind the provision in the 

Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act. The Act did not contain any 

definition of what constitutes the national interest. The State Department 

concluded that to determine what was in the national interest, we needed to 

evaluate the impacts of granting a permit informed by analysis of a specific 

proposed route. Only after a route was identified could we study and 

evaluate the potential impacts as well as the national interest considerations. 

We had announced in November 2011, based on prior projects of similar 

length and scope, that a potential route could be identified and assessed by 

as early as the first quarter of2013. The State Department consistently 
68 


76343.028

stated that it did not think it would be responsible to hasten a decision on 

what constitutes the national interest in response to an arbitrary deadline. 
69 


76343.029

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Chairman Fred Upton (#2) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

The Keystone provision of the payroll tax cut extension law expressly states 

that the NEP A process is over and no further federal environmental review 

is required. But the administration's rationale for rejecting the Keystone 

pipeline's permit is there was not enough time to review the new route in 

Nebraska. 

a. Ifno additional review is required by law, how was there not enough 

time? 

b. The law allows the President to approve the pipeline while the State 

of Nebraska sites and evaluates a new route within its borders. Why 

didn't the State Department pursue that option? 

Answer: 

Although the provision in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut 

Continuation Act expressly states that the existing environmental review of 

the project would satisfy the requirements ofNEPA, the State Department's 

consideration of what constitutes the national interest is not limited to just 

what is required by NEP A. On November 10, 201 I, when the Department 

decided it would seek additional information regarding alternative routes 

within the State of Nebraska, it made clear that it made that decision 

pursuant to E.O. 13337 Sec. 1 (t). 
70 


76343.030

The State Department concluded that to determine what was in the 

national interest, we needed to evaluate the impacts of granting a permit 

informed by analysis of a specific proposed route. Only after a route was 

identified could we study and evaluate the potential impacts as well as 

the national interest considerations. We had announced in November 

2011, based on prior projects of similar length and scope, that a potential 

route could be identified and assessed by as early as the first qUaJier of 

2013. Thc State Department consistently stated that it did not think it 

would be responsible to hasten a decision on what constitutes the national 

interest in response to an arbitrary deadline. 
71 


76343.031

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secreta ry of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Chairman Fred Upton (#3) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

In October 15, 2010, Secretary of State Clinton said she was "inclined" to 

approve Keystone XL's permit. On October 31, 2011, White House Press 

Secretary Jay Carney stated "the fact is this is a decision that will be made 

by the State Department, or is housed within the State Department." The 

very next day, President Obama said the decision would rest with him. In 

the President's announcement last week to reject the pipeline's permit, he 

said he had accepted the State Department's recommendations to do so. 

a. Who, once and for all, made the decision to reject Keystone XL's 

Presidential Permit? 

b. Did the White House exert any influence over the State Department's 

recommendation? 

Answer: 

As I stated in my testimony, on January 18,2012, the Department 

recommended to the President that the application for a Presidential 

Permit be denied due to insufficient time to conduct the necessary 

analysis, and the President accepted our recommendation and 

determined that the Keystone XL pipeline project, as presented and 

analyzed at that time, would not serve the national interest. 

The White House did not exert any influence over the State 

Department's recommendation. 
72 


76343.033

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Chairman Fred Upton (#4) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

The State Department's mission statement is to "shape and sustain a 

peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for 

stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people 

everywhere." Last week, the U.S. imported 10 million barrels of oil from 

Saudi Arabia, 2.6 million barrels from Nigeria, 924,000 barrels from 

Angola, and 4.5 million barrels from Venezuela. None of these nations 

practice a valid form of democracy and in some cases are actively hostile to 

American interests. 

a. If the U.S. continues to import large volumes of oi I from these 

countries, does this "shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, 

and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and 

progress for the benefit of the American people and people 

everywhere?" 

b. If the U.S. shuns the economic interests of our closest democratic 

ally - Canada - does this live up to the State Depattment's mission 

statement? 

Answer: 

As stated in my testimony, the decision to deny the permit was not 

made on the merits of the proposed project. The factors you mention 

regarding dependence on foreign oil as well as the importance of promoting 

trade with our close ally Canada are important considerations. These 

factors, as well as the health and safety of the communities along the 
73 


76343.034

pipeline route, are some of the many factors the State Department would 

have considered if a potential route were identified and the national interest 

determination was allowed to proceed as planned. 

The U.S.-Canada alliance is a cornerstone of both countries' national 

security. We believe Canada will remain committed to the bilateral alliance. 

and the United States will continue to work with Canada to ensure our 

shared interests in energy, environmental, and economic issues are not 

negatively affected by this decision. 
74 


76343.035

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Chairman Fred Upton (#5) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

In November 20 I J, part of your rationale for delaying a decision until early 

2013 was because "based on experience with pipelines of similar length wc 

estimated that it would take [18 months] to complete our assessment." Is it 

really State Department's contention that it would take a year and a half to 

study 200 miles of new pipeline while it took three years to study nearly 

1,700 miles of the same pipeline? 

Answer: 

Certain required elements of the review process, such as opportunities 

for public input, state input, and input from the other eight federal agencies 

named in Executive Order 13337, are unaffected by the actual length of the 

pipeline. That said, this timeline was only an estimate and we would have 

proceeded as expeditiously as possible consistent with our responsibilities. 
75 


76343.036

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Chairman Fred Upton (#6) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

.January 25, 2012 

The State of Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality contends since 

December they have not received any communication from the State 

Depal1ment on the Memorandum of Understanding for a new pipeline route 

mandated by Nebraska State law. Why did the State Department cease 

cooperating at that point? 

Answer: 

Robust discussions were ongoing with the State of Nebraska for a 

Memorandum of Understanding up until the enactment of the Temporary 

Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act. To expedite discussions, the State 

Department's legal counsel had traveled to Nebraska to work directly with 

the Nebraska authorities. Once the law was enacted, the State Department 

determined that further negotiations should continue only after the 

Department determined how to proceed in light of the Act. Once the 

decision to deny the permit was made on January 18, the State Depat1ment 

no longer had an active application for a Presidential Permit before it, and 

thus no basis to enter into an MOU with the Nebraska Depm1ment of 

Environmental Quality regarding any further review. 
76 


76343.037

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Chairman Fred Upton (#7) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

The Report to Congress states the pipeline's developer is free to reapply for 

a Presidential Permit. If this occurs, what timeline do you expect for 

consideration? Will a new EIS process commence to evaluate the same 

route all over again? 

Answer: 

Since we do not currently have a pipeline application before us, I 

cannot estimate a timeline for the process. The existing Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline would inform a new review 

process consistent with specific provisions in the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. 
77 


76343.038

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#1) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

TransCanada has publicly stated that the Keystone XL pipeline would create 

20,000 jobs. TransCanada has also referred to jobs estimates contained in a 

study commissioned by TransCanada and performed by the Perryman 

Group, which estimates the total impact of the pipeline on the economy as 

118,935 person-years of employment over the assumed 1 OO-year life of the 

project. 

Has TransCanada provided any documentation or supporting analysis of 

TransCanada's 20,000 jobs estimate to the State Department? [fso, please 

provide such documentation or analysis. 

Answer: 

TransCanada has not provided any additional data to the State 

Department regarding job creation statistics beyond the data discussed in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (ElS). 
78 


76343.039

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#2) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

Has TransCanada provided any analysis (other than the jobs estimates 

provided in the Perryman Group study, which do not appear to be 

comparable), challenging the accuracy of the State Department's estimate in 

the Environmental Impact Statement that the Keystone XL pipeline could 

result in 20 permanent jobs and 5,000-6,000 temporary construction jobs? If 

so, please provide such documentation or analysis. 

Answer: 

The Department has not received any analysis from TransCanada 

regarding the employment estimates in the Final EIS. 
79 


76343.040

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#3) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

As reported in Environment and Energy news on January 27, 2012, Dr. 

Jones misspoke in response to a hearing question about jobs estimates. The 

article states that according to a State Department spokesperson, Dr. Jones 

meant to say that a rough estimate of the pipeline's indirect job potential was 

3,500 annual jobs, not 35,000 jobs. 

Is the article accurate in reporting that Dr. Jones misspoke in referencing 

35,000 jobs and instead meant to say that a rough estimate of the pipeline's 

indirect job potential was 3,500 annual jobs? 

Answer: 

Yes. The January 27, 2012 ClimateWire article by E&E reporter, 

Christa Marshall, is accurate in stating that Assistant Secretary Jones 

misspoke when referring to indirect jobs estimates. The reference should 

have been to 3,500 potential indirect jobs, not 35,000. 
80 


76343.041

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#4) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

Was the rough estimate of 3,500 annual indirect jobs referenced by Dr. 

Jones based on TransCanada's estimate that 7,000 indirect job-years would 

be created over a two-year period? 

Answer: 

Yes. Assistant Secretary Jones' reference to a rough estimate of3,500 

potential indirect jobs was based on a preliminary analysis of TransCanada' s 

assertion that 7,000 indirect manufacturing jobs would be created by the 

pipeline construction investment over a two-year period. TransCanada 

defined the 7,000 indirect jobs in "person years" and explained that it would 

mean 3,500 manufacturing jobs per year over a two-year construction 

period. 
81 


76343.042

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#5) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

On October 7,2011, at a public meeting in Washington, D.C. on the 

Keystone XL pipeline permit application, the State Department received 

testimony from, among others, Mike Klink, who raised safety concerns 

about the Keystone XL pipeline based on this professional experience. 

During the construction of the first TransCanada Keystone tar sands pipeline 

in 2009, Bechtel was the construction contractor for TransCanada, and Mr. 

Klink was employed by Bechtel as a pipeline safety inspector for that 

project. As part of his job, Mr. Klink observed and reported to his superiors 

numerous safety problems in the construction of the Keystone pipeline, 

including the use of substandard materials. My understanding is that 

Bechtel and TransCanada commissioned an investigation of these 

allegations and a report on the findings of the investigation was provided to 

Bechtel and TransCanada. TransCanada's Keystone pipeline has in fact 

experienced significant safety issues, spilling 14 times in its first year-and-ahalf of operation. Information regarding the role construction practices may 

have played in producing these problems would be highly relevant to an 

evaluation of safety concerns regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. 

Have the safety concerns raised by Mr. Klink been investigated by the State 

Department or PHMSA as part of the safety evaluation for Keystone XL? 

Answer: 

We took very seriously all the information and comments provided to 

the State Department during the public comment periods, including 

comments regarding safety concerns arising from construction and operation 
82 


76343.043

of the original Keystone Pipeline. The State Department has not conducted 

any specific investigation into Mr. Klink's comments provided October 7, 

2011. The State Department consulted extensively with PHMSA throughout 

the Keystone XL review process regarding issues of pipeline safety. The 

State Department, however, cannot speak for PHMSA regarding their 

regulation of existing pipelines. 
83 


76343.044

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#6) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

If so, what were the results of that investigation? Please provide any 

documents describing or summarizing such an investigation and the results. 

Answer: 

We are not aware of such an investigation. 
84 


76343.045

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#7) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

How were the results of such investigation, if any, taken into consideration 

in developing the 57 conditions related to pipeline safety? 

Answer: 

The 57 conditions that were included in the Final EIS were developed 

in close consultation with PHMSA. The development of those conditions 

took into consideration the history of the start-up and operation of the first 

Keystone pipeline. The State Department cannot speak for PHMSA on 

whether or how they may have taken into consideration the types of issues 

identified by Mr. Klink in his comments. 
85 


76343.046

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secl'etary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#8) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

Does the State Department have the report commissioned by TransCanada 

and Bechtel referenced above? If so, please provide it to the Committee. 

Answer: 

We are not aware of such a report nor have we received such a report. 
86 


76343.047

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#9) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

1fnot, will the State Department commit to obtain a copy of the report from 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration or TransCanada 

and provide a copy of that report to the Committee? 

Answer: 

The State Department is not aware of such a report nor have we received 

such a report. 
87 


76343.048

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#10) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

Will the State Depattment commit to consider the repott's findings as part of 

its evaluation of the safety of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline? In 

particular, if TransCanada resubmits its permit application, will the State 

Department reconsider the adequacy of the analysis of pipeline safety in the 

ErS in light of the report, including the projected number and size of spills 

and the permit conditions related to pipeline safety? If not, why not? 

Answer: 

The Department cannot make specific commitments on the review 

process of a permit for which we have not yet received an application. The 

State Department is committed to a rigorous, thorough and transparent 

process. and we will examine all the available information in any future 

application. Such a process would include again working with the applicant 

and PHMSA to obtain the most current intormation available regarding 

pipeline safety, including information regarding the construction, start-up, 

and operation of the original Keystone pipeline. 
88 


76343.049

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#11) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

In light of the recent year-long delay of any decision by the Canadian 

government on the application for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline 

in light of wide-spread and mounting opposition to that pipeline in British 

Columbia (as well as opposition to any alternative pipelines to the West 

coast of Canada and any increase in tanker traffic off the West coast), and 

especially across the First Nations peoples, who have legal and 

constitutional rights with respect to their lands, it appears increasingly 

unlikely that tar sands product could be exported from Western Canada to 

Asia anytime soon, if at all. While trucking and rail may provide alternative 

means to move tar sands out of Albelia, it is widely recognized that these 

alternative modes of transportation would be more expensive than pipelines. 

These recent development east serious doubt on the statement in the final 

EIS that whether or not Keystone XL is built is not likely to affect the 

amount of crude oil produced from the tar sands. 

In light of these recent developments and in the event that TransCanada 

resubmits its permit application, will the State Department commit to 

reevaluate the potential impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on the pace and 

extent of tar sands extraction, and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions? 

If not, why not? 

Answer: 

The Department cannot make specific commitments on the review 

process of a permit for which we have not yet received an application. The 

State Department is committed to a rigorous, thorough and transparent 
89 


76343.050

process and we will examine all the available information in any future 

application. Such a process would include working with agencies expert in 

energy markets, such as the Department of Energy, to obtain the most 

current information available regarding the potential indirect and cumulative 

impacts on the energy market of the pipeline project identified in any future 

application. 
90 


76343.051

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#12) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

In July 20 I 0, I requested that the State Department include in its analysis of 

the Keystone XL permit application an analysis of the extent to which the 

Gulf coast refineries are projected to export refined tar sands products to 

other countries. It does not appear that the tinal EIS includes such analysis. 

In recent Congressional debates on the Keystone XL pipeline, proponents of 

the pipeline have acknowledged that some portion of the refined product 

produced from the crude oil transported by the pipeline will be exported. 

ffthis analysis has been conducted, please provide it to the Committee. 

Answer: 

Analysis regarding the relationship between different scenarios of 

pipeline construction and exports of refined petroleum products can be 

found in the final EIS, Appendix V, EnSys Keystone XL Assessment - Final 

Report, section 5.2.2.5. 
91 


76343.052

Question: 

Question for the Record submitted to 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones by 

Henry A. Waxman (#13 - 14) 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

January 25, 2012 

If this analysis has not been conducted, in the event that TransCanada 

resubmits its permit application, will the State Department commit to 

analyze the extent to which the refined product produced from the tar sands 

crude oil transported by the pipeline may be exported to other countries? 

In the event that TransCanada resubmits its permit application, will the 

State Department commit to reevaluate its assessment of the purpose of and 

need for the pipeline in light of the likelihood that some portion of the 

refined product produced will be exported duty-free, and hence will not 

contribute to either U.S. energy security or U.S. government revenues. 

Answer: 

The Department cannot make specific commitments on the review 

process of a permit for which we have not yet received an application. The 

State Department is committed to a rigorous, thorough and transparent 

process and we will examine all the available information in any future 

application. Such a process would include working with agencies expert in 

energy markets, such as the Department of Energy, to obtain the most 
92 


76343.053

current information available regarding the potential indirect and cumulative 

impacts on the energy market of the pipeline project identified in any future 

application. 
93 

AMERICAN JOBS NOW: A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3548, THE NORTH AMERICAN 

ENERGY ACCESS ACT—DAY 2 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Sullivan, Walden, 

Terry, Burgess, Bilbray, McMorris Rodgers, Olson, Pompeo, Griffith, Barton, Rush, Dingell, Markey, Engel, Capps, Gonzalez, and 

Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy General Counsel; 

Maryam Brown, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Allison Busbee, 

Legislative Clerk; Garrett Golding, Professional Staff Member, Energy; Cory Hicks, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Ben 

Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; Jeff Baran, Democratic 

Senior Counsel; Greg Dotson, Democratic Energy and Environment 

Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; Angela Kordyak, DOE Detailee; Billie McGrane, Democratic Assistant 

Clerk; and Alexandria Teitz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Environment and Energy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Committee will come to order. Today’s hearing 

on American Jobs Now, H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act, is being held pursuant to Rule XI of the House Rules at 

the request of Mr. Rush, Mr. Waxman, and other members of the 

minority. 

Although we gave opening statements at the first hearing, pursuant to an agreement between the minority and the majority, each 

side this morning will be given 10 minutes for opening statements, 

and at this time I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for 

the purpose of making an opening statement. 

Like many people, I was quite disappointed when the President 

decided the Keystone Pipeline was not in the national interest, and 

the reason that he gave for making that decision was that there 

was not enough time to collect and review information regarding 

the route through Nebraska. We all are very much aware, however, 

that the application for the permit was filed in September of 2008. 

That was almost 3 1⁄2 years ago. 

As a matter of fact, as far back as October 2010, in a speech at 

the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in response to a question said that she was inclined 

94 

to approve the permit for the Keystone Pipeline based on the information she had. 

I also want the public to know, and I am sure they are very 

much aware of this also, that five major labor unions supported 

and still support the building of this pipeline. In an article entitled, 

‘‘Labor Civil War over Keystone XL,’’ the author reported some of 

President Barack Obama’s biggest labor supporters are fuming 

over his decision. Unions representing construction workers that 

would directly benefit from building the pipeline, as he said in his 

article, feel stabbed in the back by unions that joined environmental groups to kill the project. Laborers’ International Union of 

North America General president Terry O’Sullivan said the decision was so repulsive and disgusting that he was going to pull his 

union out of the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of environmental 

groups and labor unions that represented nearly all of the groups 

that signed a statement, a joint statement supporting the President. 

Mr. O’Sullivan said unions and environmental groups that have 

no equity in this work have kicked our members in the teeth, and 

anger is an understatement as to how we feel about it. We will not 

sit at the table with people that destroy our members’ livelihood. 

The labor union supporting the project issued a particularly 

forceful statement condemning the decision as politics at its worst, 

and Mr. Sean Sweeney, who is the director of Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, who did a study about the jobs that this 

would create, made it very clear when he said that this decision 

was really about the President being reelected. The President’s reelection is at stake, and he said there is certainly more at stake 

here than a simple pipeline. 

In closing I would simply like to quote from an editorial in the 

Chicago Tribune. ‘‘Keystone should be approved. This is a good 

project. It will give us energy and give us jobs. You want stimulus? 

This is it. This is a $7 billion project to be done with private dollars. Taxpayer dollars will not be used. President Obama made a 

decision that we think is the wrong decision.’’ 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

95 


76343.054

Opening Statement of the Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

Continuation of Hearing on "American Jobs Now: H.R.3548, 

the North American Energy Access Act" 

February 3, 2012 

(As Prepared for Delivery) 

Today's hearing is just another delay in the long list of delays we've seen with the Keystone 

XL project. The State Department has already spent 40 months reviewing this project that 

won't cost taxpayers a dime. And despite the fact that the Department concluded that the 

pipeline would have "no significant impact on the environment," we are still waiting. 

Americans are looking for a plan for energy independence, and the President has done 

nothing to advance that cause, choosing instead to invest in failing firms that give him 

political benefit, like the bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra. 

The president said in his State of the Union address that he supports "all of the above," but 

his actions are contradictory to that statement. 

His administration has worked tirelessly to bring an end to coal, our most affordable 

for of electricity. 

Leasing on federal lands for oil and natural is at an all-time low under his watch. 

The Chairman of his Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done everything in his 

power to limit nuclear power by stopping Yucca Mountain. 

Time and again President Obama chooses the "Solyndra economy" over the "Keystone 

economy." The "Keystone economy" is privately funded, creates jobs and will bring nearly a 

million barrels of secure oil each day from our good ally Canada. We've seen what the 

"Solyndra economy" brings. It doesn't work. 

The project is supported by members on both sides of the aisle, including 47 House 

Democrats who voted in favor of legislation to expedite the pipeline decision last year and 

numerous Senate Democrats on record in favor of this commonsense project. 

Several labor unions have spoken out in strong support of this project and the jobs it will 

create. American labor unions have also signed Project Labor Agreements with TransCanada 

to build the pipeline we just need to say yes to these jobs. 

A recent poll showed the American people strongly in favor of building the Keystone XL 

pipeline: 64% supported it, and only 22% opposed. 

I think it is high time that we build this pipeline. I urge all members to support H.R. 3548, 

the North American Energy Access Act to build the Keystone XL pipeline. 

### 
96 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And with that, I would—does anyone seek recognition for a minute and 48 seconds? 

No. I will recognize you later. 

All right. 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the balance of my time to you, Mr. Walden. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his 

comments. I was just reviewing the testimony by I believe it is Mr. 

Pool from the Bureau of Land Management. I just find it interesting that how much our government rules and regulations come 

into play here for so little land. He says in his testimony the total 

permanent right of way on BLM-managed public lands for this 

Keystone Project would be approximately 50 feet wide and comprise a total of approximately 270 acres. 

Now, let that sink in. You think about how minor a role the Federal Government is playing in terms of this land and yet—and they 

have issued their approval is my understanding. Final biological 

assessment has been issued and shows no jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act. The Federal Government BLM at least, 270 

acres, 50 feet wide. We have got horrible unemployment problem. 

It is getting a little better, but, you know, 8.3 percent is nothing 

to brag about. You got a $7 million potential investment here, private sector funds, that could create thousands of jobs and new 

property tax base payments to local governments throughout that 

region, and I just think it is time to get this done. 

So I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Walden. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, 

for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this important hearing that the minority side requested in order to 

hear from some of the important stakeholders who were not invited 

to participate in last week’s hearing and to shed light onto some 

of the ramifications of the legislation before us, H.R. 3548. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill is simply another bite at the apple in the 

majority’s attempt to backdoor the Obama administration and 

green light a project that has not yet been fully vented in what 

amount to be an application of the Federal Government’s oversight 

responsibilities. 

In fact, why don’t we simply call this bill for what it really is. 

Instead of the North American Energy Access Act, this bill should 

be renamed the Republicans and Congress Favor to TransCanada 

Act. This bill does not make sense. Legally it doesn’t make sense. 

Sensibly it doesn’t make sense because it shifts the responsibility 

for a cross-water pipeline from the State Department to FERC, an 

agency which has no experience in signing this type of national 

97 

project, specifically, or on pipelines generally. This bill does not 

make sense frankly, and it does not make sense morally. 

As we heard from the Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann 

Jones last week, she—of the Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environment and Scientific Affairs, the recommendations for denying the permit was made simply because there was not sufficient 

time for the agencies to complete its due diligence and perform its 

legal oversight responsibility, mainly due to the fact that currently 

there is not even a proposed route for the State Department to review. It would have been a gross negligence and recklessness for 

the Obama administration to approve a permit for a pipeline that 

would cut through the heart of the country where when the policymakers in those very states that are mostly affected, like Nebraska, haven’t even identified the most appropriate route for the 

pipeline to move through. 

While the language the Republicans passed in their initial efforts 

to force the administration to come up with a decision within 60 

days of enactment of the Middle Class Payroll Tax Extension was 

inconsiderate and irresponsible, I must say that the language in 

this new bill, which was transferred in the decision to a different 

and completely inexperienced agency, FERC, and also implying 

permission to make a decision within 30 days or the project will be 

automatically approved is even more irrational and more irresponsible. 

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones stated at last 

week’s hearing regarding her agency’s recommendation, and I 

quote, ‘‘That decision was based on the fact that the exact amount 

of the pipeline has yet to be identified in 24 areas. As a result 

there are unresolved concerns for a full range of issues including 

energy security, foreign policy, economic effects, health, safety, and 

environmental impacts among other considerations.’’ 

Ms. Jones went on to say, ‘‘The legislation raises serious questions about legal authorities, questions of continuing force of much 

of the Federal and all of the State and local environmental and line 

use management authority over the pipeline,’’ and Mr. Chairman, 

I want to emphasize this, ‘‘It overrides foreign policy and national 

security considerations implicated by a cross border permit which 

are properly assessed by the State Department.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, with such dire warnings of this bill I think we 

owe it to the American public to fully explain the consequences of 

this legislation to ensure that the public interests were taken, and 

with that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Barton, for the purpose of making an opening statement, 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. I am not—I won’t use that much time, Mr. Chairman, but thank you. 

This is a continuing hearing. Everything that can be said about 

Keystone has been said, but sometimes it needs to be repeated. 

This is an extremely important project for our Nation’s future. 

98 

Just in the last month or so we have had a number of announcements that refineries in the United States, in the Northeast, and 

in the Virgin Islands are going to be closed, several in Pennsylvania, one in the Virgin Islands, I think one in Ohio. Altogether 

they are taking about a million barrels of refinery production off 

the books, and while the Keystone Pipeline is not building a new 

refinery, it is bringing additional crude oil to the Gulf Coast where 

we still have refinery capacity. That crude oil will be used to be refined into products that then can be transshipped up into the Midwest and the Northeast. 

If you shut down refineries in the Midwest and offshore that 

serve that market, and if you don’t build Keystone, that is a double 

whammy. The absolute certainty is that the prices will go up, 

shortages will exist, our economy will suffer. 

On the other hand, if we build the Keystone Pipeline, we are 

going to have additional crude coming into the United States, approximately 800,000 barrels a day. It doesn’t offset in totality the 

closure of these other refinery facilities, but it will alleviate them, 

and as my good friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, just pointed out, 

to have to go through the bureaucratic red tape that this project 

has gone through for the reasons it has been subjected to it just 

doesn’t seem to make good sense in any way. In any way. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing. There is another hearing downstairs on the Chemical Facilities Act, so I will 

be shuffling back and forth, but I do appreciate you holding the 

hearing, and I obviously appreciate being allowed to speak. 

I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Terry of Nebraska, who has been a strong voice for this project. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman emeritus. Just to clarify 

a few points, the State Department issued three statements over 

the summer that they would have all of the information, and they 

were doing all of the due diligence to have a decision made by the 

end of 2011, and we took them at their word for that, and it turned 

out to be not true. 

I think one of the key points here that has been missed in the 

State Department’s testimony, in particular in the basis for their 

decision, is that they are using Nebraska as the excuse to deny the 

permit. The reality is in the legislation that the President signed 

specifically exempting Nebraska out of this, this was going forward 

on the other parts of the pipeline in the other states. It carved out 

a time that—or a trigger that would review the Nebraska portion, 

the 30 or 40 miles that the pipeline would be moved based upon 

when the governor certified that it was ready. So I am amazed at 

why that hasn’t been brought out. 

Now, I am glad that the Corps of Engineers is here today because they do play a vital point and in their testimony raises a 

valid point that we had already vetted and had planned to change 

and that is we want to make it clear that what the legislation does 

is remove the Presidential permission part and gives it to the agency, the Federal agency that actually has experience in pipelines. 

We thought that was a rational approach with this bill. 

99 

So I want to let the Corps know that we aren’t usurping, and we 

will change the language of issuing permits of any project that 

crosses the waterway under your jurisdiction. 

So we knew there were other permits that they would have to 

file and receive once the Presidential authorization was made. I am 

disappointed that we invited the Corps of Engineers and the BLM 

to our hearing last week, and they denied or refused to come, but 

yet when Henry Waxman asks to testify in opposition, you are here 

loaded forebear. So that concerns me. 

One last point in my 6 seconds is I think the message that the 

President’s denial of this permit sent the world is that the far left 

of the environmental community is now in charge of our energy 

and foreign policy. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are holding a legislative 

hearing on a bill to mandate approval of TransCanada tar sands 

pipeline Keystone XL. 

This tar sands pipeline is hugely controversial, and for good reason. 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 country, and higher 

oil prices in the Midwest. 

Big Oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the Midwest, 

a conduit for exporting tar sands 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 would not approve the pipeline through the ecologically-fragile Sand Hills area of Nebraska, 

but the State Department would consider an alternative route. 

Nebraska is taking the time to find a route that is acceptable, 

and the President is making sure that he has all the information 

he needs to make the right decision. 

This bill takes the opposite approach. It gives the pipeline an unprecedented regulatory earmark. It directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, directs them to approve the pipeline, even 

though we don’t yet know what route it will take through the State 

of Nebraska. It exempts the pipeline from the requirement to obtain permits from the Corps of Engineers before crossing rivers and 

wetlands. It takes away the Department of Interior’s authority to 

protect sensitive public lands. 

For a year I have been asking a simple question: Who benefits 

from this extraordinary Congressional intervention in the regulatory process? 

Last year Reuters reported that Koch Industries would be one of 

the big winners from this earmark, and there is evidence to support this. 

100 

We know that Koch is one of the largest crude oil exporters in 

Canada. We know it owns an oil terminal in Hardisty, Canada, 

where the pipeline would begin. And we know it has a refinery in 

Texas near where the pipeline is going to end. 

Last May, I contacted Koch to inquire about the nature of its interest in the pipeline, and Koch responded that despite the evidence to the contrary, it had no financial interest in whether the 

pipeline was built or not, and I accepted that answer. 

But then I learned that Koch had told the Canadian government 

that the company had a ‘‘direct and substantial interest’’ in the 

pipeline. 

I want to know why Koch would tell the U.S. Congress one thing 

and the Canadian government the exact opposite. So I asked Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield to invite Koch Industries to 

testify today. 

Well, they refused, and Koch refused to appear without an invitation from the chairman. 

So we are left with unanswered questions. Why is Koch Industries being placed in a witness protection program? What does the 

company have to hide? And why does the company get special 

treatment while the American people get left in the dark? 

I also asked the chairman to invite the operator of the pipeline, 

TransCanada. Members on our side want to ask TransCanada reasonable questions, like what route it plans to follow in Nebraska. 

We also want to know about these claims of jobs. State Department testified that we would get 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs if 

this pipeline is approved. These jobs would be around for 2 years. 

TransCanada said it is going to be 20,000 jobs, or over 100,000. 

Aand where do they get the number 100,000? Well, that is looking 

at the lifetime of the pipeline for 100 years. This is the Republican 

jobs bill. Twenty-thousand jobs, they say. Maybe 100,000 jobs and 

yet the State Department did an analysis, and there is 5,000 to 

6,000 jobs for 2 years. 

I regret that Koch and TransCanada are not here today, and I 

ask the chairman to refrain from moving this bill until they are 

available to testify. 

I am glad we have excellent witnesses here today who are going 

to give us their views: two departments that are going to be excluded from giving their usual review of the project—that might 

change, I am pleased to hear—and two gentlemen who have special 

insight at what this project will mean. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 7 seconds beyond the time, 

and I yield back whatever time I have left. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

Today we have two panels of witnesses. On the first panel if 

you—those of you on the first panel would come forward, that is 

Ms. Margaret Gaffney-Smith, who is Chief, Regulatory, for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, and Mr. Mike Pool, who is Deputy Director of Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. We appreciate both of you being here with us this morning, 

and as you know, we are going to ask each of you to give a 5- 

minute opening statement and at the end of that time then questions will be asked. 

101 

I might also point out that we have been told that there will be 

five or six votes on the House Floor somewhere around 11:00 or so, 

but we are going to proceed as long as we can and then we will 

vote and then we will come back. So thank you all for being with 

us this morning. 

At this time, Ms. Gaffney-Smith, I would like to recognize you for 

5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement, and be sure 

and turn your microphone on, and I guess that little box there on 

the table, a red light will come on when the 5 minutes is up. So 

you are now recognized. 

STATEMENTS OF MARGARET GAFFNEY–SMITH, CHIEF, REGULATORY PROGRAM, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND MIKE 

POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET GAFFNEY–SMITH 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. Thank you, sir. Chairman Whitfield and 

members of the committee, I am Meg Gaffney-Smith, Chief of the 

Regulatory Program for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss the Corps’ regulatory authority 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act related to utility line projects and to discuss our regulatory involvement in the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires authorization 

from the Corps for the construction of any structure such as the 

Keystone Pipeline in, under, or over any navigable water of the 

U.S. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires authorization 

from the Corps for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. 

Utility line projects may require 404 permits for temporary fills 

such as access roadways, storage and work areas, as well as temporary or permanent impacts associated with grading, bank stabilization, or the cross itself. When discharges of dredged or fill material are associated with activities of a similar nature and are expected to cause no more than minimal effects, individually or cumulatively, they may be authorized by a general permit. 

Activities that do not meet the criteria for a general permit are 

typically processed through the Corps’ individual standard permit 

procedures. When implementing the Corps Regulatory Program, 

the Corps is neither an opponent nor a proponent of any specific 

project. Our responsibility is to make fair, objective, and timely decisions that protect the aquatic environment and are not contrary 

to the public interest. The authority to make the final decisions on 

permit applications rests with out 38 district commanders. 

Nationwide permit 12 is a general permit promulgated under 

Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act that may be used to authorize utility line construction. The permit authorizes the discharge of 

dredged and/or fill material in association with temporary or permanent activities related to the construction, repair, maintenance, 

and removal of utility lines provided the activity does not result in 

102 

the loss of greater than one-half acre of waters, including wetlands, 

for a single and complete project. 

Under Nationwide Permit 12 there are seven notification requirements, and if any one of these are triggered, a project proponent 

must submit a preconstruction notification request to the appropriate Corps district office before they begin work in waters of the 

United States. 

Other statutes impact the ability of the Corps to authorize activities under a nationwide permit. In accordance with the nationwide 

permit rules and the Endangered Species Act, no activity may be 

authorized that would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely 

modify the critical habitat of such species. In addition, no activity 

may be authorized by a nationwide permit until the requirements 

of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act have been 

fulfilled. Further, the Corps’ nationwide permits do not obviate the 

need to obtain other Federal, State, or local permits, approvals, or 

authorizations that are required by law. 

In September and October, 2011, TransCanada submitted 

preconstruction notifications to our Corps districts in Galveston, 

Fort Worth, and Tulsa and requested that work in waters of the 

U.S. in association with the Keystone XL Pipeline be verified under 

Nationwide Permit 12. In November and December each of the 

three districts made decisions to exercise their discretionary authority and suspended Nationwide Permit 12 for all work and discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States 

associated with the Keystone XL Pipeline application. These decisions were made because of concerns identified by the Department 

of State that could not be addressed until a final decision was 

made on the pending Presidential permit application. 

The President has since determined that based on the State Department’s view that 60 days was an insufficient period to obtain 

and assess the necessary information, that the Keystone XL Pipeline project, as presented and analyzed at that time, would not 

serve the national interest. Should circumstances change in the future, our districts will process any future requests that are submitted for Department of Army permits in accordance with the appropriate procedures based on our statutory authorities and implementing regulations. 

If H.R. 3548 is enacted, only the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, and not the Corps, would be responsible for issuing 

any permit required in conjunction with construction, operation, 

and maintenance of the pipeline. At present, only the Corps has a 

statutory mandate to review projects like Keystone XL for the permit under the provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

However, none of these statutory reviews would be allowed for 

this project under the language in Section 4(a) of this bill, and no 

Corps permit would be required. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gaffney-Smith follows:] 

103 


76343.055

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

COMPLETE STATEMENT OF: 

MARGARET (MEG) GAFFNEY-SMITH 

CHIEF, REGULATORY PROGRAM 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON: 

H.R. 3548 

The North American Energy Access Act 

February 3, 2012 
104 


76343.056

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Margaret (Meg) Gaffney-Smith, 

Chief of the Regulatory Program for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss the Corps regulatory authority under Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act related to 

utility line projects and to specifically discuss our regulatory involvement in the proposed 

Keystone XL pipeline. As the National Program Chief, I oversee program 

implementation, which is accomplished in the Corps 38 district offices. 

Background on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403) 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires authorization from the Secretary of 

the Army, acting through the Corps, for the construction of any structure in, under, or 

over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits 

defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the 

structure or work would affect the course, location, condition or capacity of the water 

body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, 

filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United 

States, and applies to all structures, from the smallest floating dock to the largest 

commercial undertaking. For utility line projects, aerial or sub-aqueous utility line 

crossings--even when buried beneath the substrate of a navigable waterbody--may 

affect the navigable capacity of the waterbody and require authorization by the Corps 

under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

2 
105 


76343.057

Background on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344) 

Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or 

fills material into "waters of the United States". Since the late 1970s, the Corps has 

regulated discharges of dredged or fill material into streams and wetlands related to 

activities such as highway construction; residential, commercial, and industrial 

developments; energy projects; and utility line projects. A Corps permit is required 

whether the work, including any discharges, is permanent or temporary. Utility line 

projects may include temporary fills for access roadways, storage, and work areas, as 

well as temporary or permanent impacts associated with grading, bank stabilization, or 

the crossing itself. 

Discharges of dredged or fill material into streams and wetlands that are waters of the 

United States require authorization from the Corps. Activities that are similar in nature 

and that are expected to cause no more than minimal effects, individually and 

cumulatively, as described in Section 404(e) of the CWA, may be authorized by a 

"general permit." The CWA stipulates that general permits expire after five years, at 

which point the Corps must evaluate them, update them if necessary, and reissue them 

through a public notice and comment process. All federal, tribal, state, local agencies 

and members of the public have an opportunity to comment on general permits as part 

of the reauthorization process, and the Corps uses input received to improve 

effectiveness and environmental protection requirements of these permits. 

3 
106 


76343.058

Activities that do not meet the criteria for a general permit are typically processed under 

the "standard individual permit" procedures. These procedures include issuance of a 

public notice, preparation of a project specific decision document in accordance with 

National Environmental Policy Act requirements, and application of the Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines. Regulatory program personnel in Corps districts work with 

applicants to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States and to develop 

satisfactory compensatory mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts to aquatic 

resources. For individual permit applications, the Corps conducts a full public interest 

review, balancing the anticipated benefits against the anticipated impacts. The Corps 

can only authorize those activities that are not contrary to the public interest, and must 

authorize the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, so long as that 

alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. 

When implementing the Corps regulatory program, the Corps is neither an opponent nor 

a proponent for any specific project; the Corps responsibility is to make fair, objective, 

and timely permit decisions. The Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, 

has delegated responsibility for making final decisions on permit applications to the 

Corps District Commanders. 

Background on Nationwide Permit 12 for Utility Lines 

Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12) is a general permit promulgated under Section 404(e) 

of the CWA that may be used to authorize activities that have minimal adverse effects 

on the aquatic environment, both individually and cumulatively. Specifically, this permit 

4 
107 


76343.059

authorizes the construction, repair, maintenance and removal of utility lines, provided 

the activity does not result in the loss of greater than % acre of waters of the United 

States. It further includes associated excavation, backfill or bedding for utility lines, 

provided there is no change in pre-construction contours. Utility lines that are routed in 

or under Section 10 navigable waters without a discharge of fill material may receive the 

necessary Section 10 authorization by means of the Nationwide Perm it. This 

Nationwide Permit also includes authorization for temporary structures, fills, and work 

necessary to construct the utility line activity. Appropriate measures must be taken to 

maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent 

practicable when temporary discharges, work, and discharges are necessary for 

construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills 

must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction 

elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills must be revegetated as appropriate. 

Finally, NWP 12 includes authorization for the construction, maintenance, or expansion 

of substation facilities associated with a power line or utility line in non-tidal waters of 

the United States, with the exception of non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. 

NWP 12 includes quantitative thresholds on the amount of discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the United States. All activities included for authorization as part 

of a single and complete project must not result in the loss of greater than one-half acre 

of waters of the United States. It is important to note that the same Nationwide Permit 

cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project. The Corps 

regulations define a single and complete project at 33 C.F.R. §330.2(i) as "the total 

5 
108 


76343.060

project proposed or accomplished by one owner/developer or partnership or other 

association of owners/developers.. For linear projects, such as the Keystone XL 

pipeline proposal, the "single and complete project" will apply to each crossing of a 

separate water of the United States (Le. single waterbody) at that location. 

Applicants requesting authorization under NWP 12 are required to provide a preconstruction notification to the local district commander prior to commencing an activity 

involving anyone of the following seven criteria: 

1) mechanized land clearing in a forested wetland for the utility line right-of-way; 

2) the work/discharge is proposed in a navigable waterway (Le., Section 10 

authorization is required); 

3) the utility line in waters of the United States exceeds 500 linear feet; 

4) the utility line is placed within a jurisdictional area (Le., a water of the United 

States), and it runs parallel to a stream bed that is within that jurisdictional area; 

5) the activity will result in the loss of greater than one-tenth acre of waters of the 

United States; 

6) permanent access roads are constructed above grade for longer than 500 linear 

feet within waters of the United States; or 

7) permanent access roads are proposed to be constructed of impervious materials 

within waters of the United States. 

6 
109 


76343.061

Other Statutes Relevant to Corps Permitting Processes 

Other statutes impact the ability of the Corps to authorize activities under any 

Nationwide Permit In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), no activity 

may be authorized under any Nationwide Permit, including NWP 12 that would be likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or destroy 

or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. In addition, no activity may be 

authorized under any Nationwide Perm it until the requirements of Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been fulfilled. Further, the Corps 

Nationwide Permits do not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state or local 

permits, approval or authorizations required by law. 

Section 10 and Section 404 Permits for the Keystone XL Project 

To date, TransCanada has submitted pre-construction notifications (PCNs) requesting 

verifications under NWP 12 to the Corps Galveston, Fort Worth and Tulsa districts, for 

the necessary authorization under Section 10 and Section 404 for activities in waters of 

the U.S. in association with the Keystone XL pipeline project applied for in September 

and October 2011. Prior to the Presidential Permit being denied, each of the three 

districts made decisions to exercise discretionary authority on these PCN requests and 

suspended all work for the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United 

States because of concerns identified by the Department of State related to the public 

interest that could not be addressed until a final decision was made on the pending 

Presidential Permit application. The President has since determined, based upon the 

State Department's view that 60 days is an insufficient period to obtain and assess the 

7 
110 


76343.062

necessary information, that the Keystone XL pipeline project, as presented and 

analyzed at that time, would not serve the national interest Should circumstances 

change in the future, the districts will process any future requests that are submitted for 

Department of the Army permit(s) in accordance with the appropriate procedures based 

on its statutory authorities and implementing regulations. 

If H.R. 3548 is enacted, only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and not the 

Corps, would be responsible for issuing any permit required in conjunction with 

construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline. At present, only the Corps has 

the statutory mandate to review projects like the Keystone XL pipeline for a permit 

under the provisions of Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act However, none of these statutory reviews would be allowed for this 

project under the language in Sec. 4 (a) of this bill, and no Corps permit would be 

required. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

8 
111 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Ms. Gaffney-Smith. 

Mr. Pool, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose 

of making an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL 

Mr. POOL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting 

the Department of Interior to this hearing on H.R. 3548, the North 

American Energy Access Act. 

Legislation directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 

approve the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. The Department has 

concerns with several provisions of the legislation. The proposed $7 billion pipeline project would span more than 

1,700 miles between Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, and multiple destinations in Oklahoma and Texas. Under Executive Order 13337, 

all proposed oil pipeline projects that cross the U.S. borders require 

a Presidential permit, including a determination that the proposed 

cross-border pipeline is in the national interest. 

The State Department reviews applications for a Presidential 

permit and consults with eight other agencies including the Department of Interior in its review. The State received an application for Keystone XL Project from TransCanada Keystone Pipeline 

in September of 2008. The proposed 1,700-mile pipeline crosses 

through eastern Montana for 228 miles and includes approximately 

42 miles of scattered parcels of Federal land managed by the BLM. 

The BLM was a cooperating agency with the State Department as 

was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service in the preparation of an environmental impact statement to address the environmental effects of the proposed pipeline construction and operation activities. 

The BLM identified pipeline routes across Federal lands in Montana that would minimize environmental impacts of pipeline construction. The final EIS was issued on August 26, 2011. 

In addition, under the Mineral Leasing Act the BLM is authorized to issue rights of ways for crude oil pipelines that cross Federal lands. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline filed rights of way applications with the BLM in 2008. The Keystone Project would include a permanent 50-foot right of way along the scattered 42 miles 

of BLM-managed lands in Montana and comprise a total of 270 

acres. 

Applications were also filed for temporary use permits and for 

electrical transmission lines on public lands in Montana to supply 

power to the proposed pumping stations. Temporary rights of ways 

for construction purposes would comprise of 200 additional acres 

dispersed on BLM-managed tracts of land and would be used for 

a period of 3 years then reclaimed by Keystone. These permit applications have not been withdrawn. Their processing is on hold. 

The North American Energy Access Act appears to make the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the sole Federal agency responsible for the project. It would also give the commission sole authority to permit construction, operations, and maintenance for the 

pipeline and related facilities. The legislation is not clear on how 

these—how the pipeline construction, operation, and maintenance 

would be carried out on Federal lands and what role, if any, the 

112 

BLM would have with regard to spills on Federal lands from the 

pipeline. 

This departure from current law would also preclude the BLM 

from collecting rents and cost recovery related to the pipeline and 

rights of way on Federal lands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. 

I am pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:] 

113 


76343.063

Introduction 

Statement of 

Mike Pool 

Deputy Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Before the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

H.R. 3548, North American Energy Access Act 

February 3, 2012 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to this hearing on HR. 3548, the North 

American Energy Access Act, directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to 

approve the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. The Department has concerns with several 

provisions of this legislation. 

As discussed in detail at the January 25,2012, hearing before this Committee, the Keystone XL 

project is a proposed seven billion dollar, 1,704-mile oil pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta, 

Canada, and multiple destinations in Oklahoma and Texas. The project crosses the U.S. border 

with Canada, and is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP. Pursuant to Executive 

Order 13337, the State Department is empowered to receive applications for Presidential Permits 

for all oil infrastructure projects that cross US. borders and to determine whether those permits 

should be granted based upon whether it is in the national interest. 

The State Department received the application for this project in September 2008 and, following 

receipt of the application, State began a process to determine whether issuance of a Presidential 

Permit for this pipeline was in the national interest. The Executive Order directs the Secretary of 

State to consult with eight other agencies, including the Department of the Interior, during its 

analysis. 

Department ofthe Interior Role in EIS 

Among other interests, of particular relevance to the Department of the Interior, the proposed 

1,704 mile route of the Keystone pipeline crosses through eastern Montana for 228 miles, 

including approximately 42 miles of scattered and non-contiguous Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)-managed parcels ofland. Keystone has filed applications with the BLM for a pipeline 

right-of-way across these Federal lands in Montana under section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act 

of J 920. The BLM was a cooperating agency with the State Department, as was the U.s. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, in the preparation of the Environmental 

Impact Statement to address the environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline construction and 

operation activities, including identification of pipeline routes across BLM-managed lands in 
114 


76343.064

Montana that would minimize environmental impacts of pipeline construction. The Final EIS, 

issued on August 26, 2011, incorporates input from the Department of the Interior. 

The BLM has the authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to issue right-of-way grants on public 

lands for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of crude oil pipelines, pumping 

stations, access roads, and site improvements. The BLM received additional applications, under 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, for electrical transmission lines on 

Federal lands in Montana to supply power to the proposed pumping stations. In addition, the 

BLM received applications for associated temporary use permits that would allow additional 

work space during construction on the 42 miles ofBLM-managed lands crossed by the Keystone 

XL project. These permit applications have not been withdrawn, but processing is on hold 

because they cannot be granted unless they are associated with an active project. 

The total permanent right of way on BLM-managed public lands for the Keystone project would 

be approximately 50 feet wide and comprise a total of approximately 270 acres. Temporary right 

of way grants for construction purposes would comprise a few hundred additional acres 

dispersed on the BLM-managed tracts of land, used for a period of not more than three years, 

and then reclaimed by Keystone. The BLM would issue a separate Record of Decision under its 

permitting authority to approve or deny any applications for right of way grants on Federal lands 

in Montana. 

Otber Departmental Cooperation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to consult to ensure 

that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any Federally listed species nor destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service began consultation with the State Department on the Keystone XL 

project in April 2008, when Keystone sent initial consultation letters to the various agencies 

including the Service. The State Department issued a final biological assessment in May 2011. 

On September 23,2011, the Service transmitted the biological opinion to the State Department 

concluding that the construction of the Keystone Pipeline is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. 

On November 14,2011, Nebraska officials and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP announced 

that they had reached an agreement whereby TransCanada voluntarily agreed to move its 

proposed route for the pipeline out of the Nebraska Sand Hills. The State of Nebraska 

subsequently passed a law (LB 4, signed on November 22,2011) on the process for reviewing 

and approving potential routes for the Keystone XL Pipeline, and the Service withdrew its 

biological opinion at the request of the State Department. 

As discussed at the January 25, 2012, hearing before your Committee on this issue, the President 

concurred with the State Department recommendation that the Keystone XL project would not 

serve the national interest at this time because the new route for the pipeline through Nebraska 

had not yet been established, making it impossible to assess the impact of that route and evaluate 

the associated environmental, health, safety, economic and energy security considerations. 

2 
115 


76343.065

H.R. 3548 

H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act, appears to make the Federal Energy 

Regnlatory Commission the sole Federal agency responsible for the project and would mandate, 

with very short timelines, the issuance of a permit for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the oil pipeline and related facilities by FERC, or, ifFERC did not issue a permit 

within the time frame, a permit is deemed to have been issued. The bill would also make a 

permit issued under the provisions of the Act the sole authority required to construct, operate, 

and maintain the pipeline and related facilities. 

Thus, if the legislation were enacted, it appears that FERC would become the Federal agency 

responsible for enforcing laws that Department of the Interior agencies which have the 

expertise and authority to carry out these functions are usually responsible for carrying out 

during "construction, operation, and maintenance" of a pipeline on Federal lands. 

For example, unlike current law, it appears that the language in Section 4 ofH.R. 3548 that 

confers on FERC the sole authority for "construction, operation, and maintenance" of the 

pipeline through its issuance of the permit would preclude the BLM from issuing any rights-ofway under the Mineral Leasing Act or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for 

authorizing and managing construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the 

pipeline and related facilities on Federal lands. This departure from current law would also 

preclude the collection by BLM of rents and other cost recovery related to the pipeline and 

related rights-of-way on Federal lands. 

Moreover, although the legislation appears to preclude issuance and administration by the BLM 

of these rights-of-way, the bill leaves unclear how the construction, operation, and maintenance 

process would be carried out on Federal lands and what role, if any, the BLM would have with 

regard to discharges on Federal lands from the pipeline. 

With regard to the Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation is carried out in cases of 

discretionary Federal action. While the legislation notes that modifications to the EIS version of 

the pipeline are allowed, and the preferred agency alternative in the EIS appears to contemplate a 

number of variations and minor realignments in the pipeline route, it is the FERC's 

determination as to whether the action taken is mandatory or discretionary and, thus, whether 

consultation would be triggered. We note, however, that absence of Section 7 consultation could 

leave the permit applicant with no "take" coverage under the ESA for impacts to listed species 

from construction and operation of the pipeline. Because application of the ESA is not 

specifically precluded by the bill, it is possible that citizen suit provisions would be available to 

potential litigants, who could assert take of listed species that might be impacted by the project. 

Conclusion 

For these reasons the Department of the Interior has significant concerns with H.R. 3548 in 

addition to those raised by other Federal agencies. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before the Subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

3 
116 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Pool, thank you very much, and at this time 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

There has been a lot of discussion on the Keystone Pipeline about 

the Koch Brothers, and the Koch Brothers have indicated that they 

have no financial—direct financial interest in this pipeline, and for 

that reason we have never really called them as a witness. And I 

might say that we know that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Railroad has direct routes right into Canada and Alberta and that 

if the pipeline is not built, that maybe some of that oil will move 

by rail into the U.S., and, of course, the owner of that railroad is 

Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway. 

We have not made any effort to call Warren Buffett to testify in 

this hearing because even though his company might benefit if the 

pipeline is not built, we do not think he has a direct financial interest in it, and I really in my view do not view Warren Buffett and 

the Koch Brothers any different on this situation. 

So I simply wanted to mention that. I would also say that the 

State Department when it issued its final environmental impact 

statement in August of 2011 actually made the comment that it 

would be better to build this pipeline than to not build the pipeline. 

If you were looking at these two options, it would be better to build 

it than not to build it. 

And so other pipeline projects requiring the Presidential permit 

usually take 18 to 24 months to review and approve. Keystone is 

now in its 40th month. So when these additional delays appear to 

be mounting early in 2011, the U.S. House passed bipartisan legislation with 47 Democrats voting yes that simply instructed President Obama to make a final decision one way or the other on the 

Presidential permit by November 1, 2011. At the time the White 

House stated the legislation was unnecessary because the State 

Department would be making the decision by the end of 2011. 

But as President Obama’s campaign began to warm up for President, the President’s political advisors realized that the environmental groups would be quite upset if the President said yes to this 

pipeline. On the other hand, the labor unions were going to be 

quite upset, at least five or six of them, if the President said no 

to the pipeline. 

So at that time the President instead of making a decision said 

that he would wait until after the election to make a decision. So 

from our perspective this really was nothing but a political decision, and since we have had 40 months of detailed study and analysis on this, we felt like that there was no reason to delay anymore, because we do need to be less dependent upon foreign oil. We 

can bring in this oil from our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, and we can create jobs as well. 

So I wanted to just make that comment about the Koch Brothers 

and the fact that I don’t see that they are in much of a different 

position than Warren Buffett is except they are on different sides 

of the issue perhaps. 

And I yield back the balance of my time, and Mr. Rush, I will 

recognize you for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that maybe you 

should invite Warren Buffett and the Koch Brothers here. That 

would be a dandy old hearing. 

117 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That would. 

Mr. RUSH. Right. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We would get a lot of press. 

Mr. RUSH. Right. I want to ask Mr. Pool regarding the Bureau 

of Land Management’s current role in—how—I think you hit on it, 

but I want you to expound on this. How does this bill affect the 

role of your agency? How does this bill affect the role of your agency? 

Mr. POOL. It does raise concerns. The BLM has a long history of 

issuing the rights of ways under the Mineral Leasing Act, approximately 32,000. We have experience, we have the practitioners in 

the field that are familiar with the right-of-way program and the 

importance of working through NEPA and taking into account any 

cultural biological concerns. 

So and we have got that experience. We have dealt with pipelines many times in the past, so the bill the way it is worded seems 

to confer all of our responsibility under the Mineral Leasing Act to 

FERC, and some of the accelerated timeframes in the bill it begs 

the question whether or not if there is any additional consultation 

requirements under Section 106 of the National Archeological Protection Act or any additional consultations that may be required 

through the Fish and Wildlife Service if that is possible. 

I think the other thing that I think is very important is the BLM 

has established relationships in the west. We have many offices 

geographically in the west. We are accustomed to working with 

county, local governments, State governments. We work with our 

Federal counterparts as well. So we have been in this process for 

3 years as it relates to our right of way, the right away application 

in Montana, so we have an already-established relationship with 

our Federal and State entities as we work through, you know, this 

particular project or future projects. 

And I think that helps ensure ourselves and with the involvement of the Federal agencies that we are fulfilling, you know, our 

Congressional mandates. 

Mr. RUSH. As far as you are concerned does FERC have the same 

vast foot front in the west to make similar decisions? 

Mr. POOL. Well, I know from a jurisdictional ownership standpoint they do not. They are a regulatory entity. I mean, you know, 

when it comes to transcontinental natural gas line, FERC usually 

assumes that lead, and when they are in that role, we are a cooperating agency. 

But it is important to point out that, you know, and the more recent example being the Ruby Pipeline in the west, they had the 

lead, but all our other mandates regarding segments that cross 

public lands or other Federal jurisdictions, that was administered 

and authorized under the Mineral Leasing Act, and all other mandates were also required as well. 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Gaffney-Smith, the Army Corps of Engineers has 

a role in this submitting process and concerning this—so your responsibilities and some of your activities regarding this matter. 

Would you care to expound more on how this bill will affect your 

role? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. Our interpretation and understanding of 

the bill as it is currently proposed would eliminate any opportunity 

118 

for the Corps of Engineers to process any applications related to 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act, and so we would have—under the current language 

within the bill, we would have no authority to regulate the activities in waters that are under our jurisdiction under those two laws. 

Mr. RUSH. So this would aggregate your significant responsibilities and dilute the authority and the experience the Army Corps 

of Engineers have built up over centuries? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. Yes. It would remove all of our authority 

and remove any existing experience that we could lend to the review of the proposal. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. Can either of you tell the committee on the 

provision of this bill which agency or agencies would then be responsible for enforcing the terms of the environmental impact 

statement? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. From the Corps of Engineers perspective it 

looks like the entire responsibility would be provided to the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Mr. RUSH. Do you agree, Mr. Pool? 

Mr. POOL. That is the way the bill comes across to us as well. 

It is the transfer of authority that we currently have at BLM in 

terms of, you know, issuing the rights of ways from the Mineral 

Leasing Act, and that would be conferred to FERC. 

I think it is also important to point out that in terms of, you 

know, BLM’s Rights of Way Program, that these are cost reimbursement programs for—so the work that we perform, the studies 

that may be necessary depending on where any pipeline may be 

right across public land, industry provides a cost reimbursable account. So that account would, under this bill would pretty much, 

you know, we would not happen anymore. We would be out of the 

picture. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield. 

During this State of the Union address President Obama turned 

his back on the Keystone Pipeline. He actually rejected the advice 

of his own Jobs Council who recommended an all-in approach to 

energy policy that included expediting energy projects like pipelines. 

Like many Americans I was surprised that the primary reason 

the President stated for his denial saying Congress forced his decision with an arbitrary deadline. If excuses were barrels of oil, this 

administration would have filled out strategic petroleum reserves 

several times over. 

The truth of the matter is the administration had 3 years to 

reach a decision on Keystone XL but failed to do so. If more than 

1,100 days is not enough time, then exactly how much time do you 

need to secure our energy future, Mr. President? 

This begs the question of just who is in control of our national, 

Nation’s energy agenda. Time and time again we hear about President Obama’s commitment to American-made energy that creates 

jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign oil, yet he rejects a nobrainer like Keystone XL. The truth is he made a calculated politVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:04 Nov 28, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-10~1.ENE\112-10~1.ENE WAYNE
119 

ical decision to reject it to keep his anti-jobs environmental base 

happy in an election year. 

By rejecting the pipeline President Obama turned his back on 

American jobs. What logical reason could there be to say no to 

20,000 new private sector jobs and potentially 100,000 indirect jobs 

while our Nation’s unemployment rate remains above 8 percent? It 

is in both our economic and national security interests to use the 

oil and gas reserves right here in our own backyard. 

Mr. President, why not embrace bolstering our energy supply 

with a stable source of oil from Canada and North Dakota instead 

of politically tumultuous OPEC nations. Unlike the trillion-dollar 

failed stimulus law, the Keystone Project is privately funded and 

does not cost the taxpayers one dime. The Keystone XL Pipeline is 

a game changer for energy security. The pipeline when fully complete would transport nearly 1.3 million barrels of oil per day from 

Alberta and North Dakota to refineries in the Midwest and Gulf 

Coast. 

I believe this is in our national interest to move forward with 

this pipeline, and the State Department’s 3-year delay is considering—in considering this pipeline is a national travesty. Three 

years into the Obama’s Presidency he has severely limited access 

to both on and offshore oil and gas reserves, pushed the most expensive environmental regulatory agenda in history, and sent a 

half-billion dollars of taxpayer money to Solyndra, a now-bankrupt 

solar company. 

The fact of the matter is that our country needs all the energy 

we can get to continue growing our economy. With gas prices expected to rise in the coming months, his decision to reject the Keystone Pipeline means that our energy security is now in the hands 

of China, Iran, and other OPEC nations; not a good choice. 

Mr. Chairman, the Keystone Pipeline is the right thing to do to 

create jobs and make our Nation more energy secure. I would like 

to yield the balance of my time to Congressman Lee Terry from Nebraska. 

Mr. TERRY. If the gentleman doesn’t mind, can I reject that since 

I only have a minute 30 left? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, you can. 

Mr. TERRY. But I appreciate that opportunity. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back his time. 

At this time I will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the topic that we are discussing is 

the Keystone Pipeline, but I must say the Republicans are like 

Keystone cops in the way they have handled this whole issue. They 

have been going way out on a limb to get this pipeline approved, 

even to the point where a tax cut for middle class Americans and 

unemployment benefits and money for physicians was—a bill was 

held up to make sure that there was a provision that gives special 

treatment to the Keystone Pipeline. 

But these brilliant people put in a provision that said the President has to decide the issue within a certain period of time. They 

forgot to tell him how he had to decide it, and the President said, 

120 

‘‘I want to get all the facts first, and I am not going to approve it 

in this timeframe.’’ 

So now they have come up with a bill. This is a remarkable bill. 

This bill says—I wish people would read it. This—it says—this is 

a—the pipeline in this bill is the Keystone XL Pipeline. No question about it, and they are exempted from review except for 30 

days, but if the FERC doesn’t give them a permit in 30 days, then 

they will be deemed approved. They are not taking any chances 

now. 

And in addition they say that the two other agencies and all the 

other agencies that might be involved in reviewing this bill will no 

longer have the power to review the bill. So we have witnesses here 

from two of the agencies that ordinarily would review any legislation, not legislation, any application for something that would go 

over public lands, over waterways. Suddenly they are out. They 

can’t review it. 

So when we found out, when Mr. Terry found out that was the 

case, he just said to us for the first time this morning, oh, we are 

not going to do that. We are going to put them back in the bill. 

So the application has to be approved in 30 days, or it is approved. If they want to make a modification, they can ask for a review for 30 days, but if it is not approved in 30 days, it is approved. 

For this one project. 

Now, we wanted to find out what interest the Koch Industries 

had. Now, why did we want to find that out? Well, the Koch Industries is one of the largest crude oil exporters in Canada. The Koch 

Industries own the terminal in Canada where the pipeline would 

begin. The Koch Industries has a refinery near where the pipeline 

would end, and the chairman said they—he would take their word 

for it they don’t have any interest, even though there is evidence 

to the contrary. 

But then he throws out a real herring as no one better than a 

Keystone cop could do, and his argument, oh, well, wait a minute. 

There is another guy who agrees with the Democrats some of the 

time, who owns a railroad, and they might put the coal, tar sands 

on the railroad. So really what the Democrats are doing is fronting 

for another industry. Boy, does that make sense. You got the crude 

oil owner with the pipeline and a refinery, and we should just take 

their word for they have no interest, but we should then point the 

finger at Warren Buffett’s company. 

And then what did they do? They say in hearings, well, we know 

what is going on. We are attributing the worst possible motives to 

the President of the United States. It is all political. Well, that is 

quite a statement. How did they get into the President’s head? 

What the President said is I want to get information before I approve it, and they said, aha. What is really going on is the President is trying to take care of the environmentalists, and he is going 

to annoy them. They have got it all written down. They could be 

on 24-hour news radio. They have figured it all out without getting 

more information. 

Well, we have two witnesses right now, and before acting we 

should get some further information about this special interest bill. 

It directs the FERC to deal with the matter, but Ms. GaffneySmith, under the section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. 

121 

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 

this pipeline? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. It appears to do so. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And Mr. Pool, the—your agency has to do with 

wildlife. Tell me what your agency would ordinarily review and 

whether you have that ability to review it. 

Mr. POOL. Congressman, we—all these type actions we review 

them per land-use plans. That is the Congressional mandate 

under—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. And now are you being taken, is that jurisdiction 

being taken away from you? 

Mr. POOL. It appears it would, that we would no longer apply 

those other Congressional—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. We used to have a party in this country called the 

Know Nothings, and the people that are pushing this bill want us 

to know nothing about this pipeline except what the proponents 

want us to know, and if the Koch Brothers are proponents and are 

going to benefit, I would like to know about it, and the American 

people ought to know about it as well. 

My time has expired, and I hope we have another round. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time we will recognize the gentleman 

from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

Mr. Pool, tell me again the agency you are with. 

Mr. POOL. Bureau of Land Management. 

Mr. WALDEN. And tell me how many acres are at play and that 

you have reviewed as part of the Keystone Pipeline review process? 

Mr. POOL. Congressman, the majority of that acreage is in Montana. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. POOL. A little over 42-mile segment and it comprises given 

the linear width 50 feet, it comprises about 250 acres with an additional 900 acres that would be needed probably for staging during 

the construction phase. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. I was thinking, I was looking for it here in 

your testimony. I thought it was actually 270 acres is what your 

testimony is but it is the same. 

Mr. POOL. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Two fifty, 270. And you have done the environmental work on that. Right? The review process through NEPA already? 

Mr. POOL. Our segment was reviewed through the NEPA process. That was led by the State Department, and so the segment 

that we are associated with through our mandates was evaluated, 

and as a result of the final EIS that came out in August we did 

not identify any major constraints to that segment in terms of authorization. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you have done the full review, you have 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? 

122 

Mr. POOL. You know, we issue—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Temporary in and out. 

Mr. POOL. It is. It is, you know, temporary use for grants to facilitate staging during the construction phase. 

Mr. WALDEN. And then that would revert back. 

Mr. POOL. That is for a 3-year period. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK, and then talk to me about any issues related 

to the work that your fine agency did on the biological opinions related to the Endangered Species Act. Did you find any threat to 

threatened or endangered species? 

Mr. POOL. I think the initial biological opinion that was provided 

indicated there would not likely be a jeopardy to the existence of 

threatened or endangered species. 

Mr. WALDEN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. POOL. Obviously it was subsequently withdrawn and—— 

Mr. WALDEN. But it was an FEIS as well. Right? I mean, it had 

gone through the full—— 

Mr. POOL. That is correct. It was issued after the issuance of the 

FEIS. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. So your agency, your biologists, all the people that do this work have thoroughly reviewed the Keystone part 

that would cross Federal land over which you have jurisdiction. 

Mr. POOL. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. And found no—not—no likely jeopardy of any 

threatened or endangered specie, and you are talking about a total 

of 270 acres roughly for the full pipeline. Correct? So the State Department had all that information. 

Mr. POOL. Yes, they do. 

Mr. WALDEN. On the public lands. 

Mr. POOL. Yes. We were very cooperative to the State Department, one of many, so—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. POOL [continuing]. That is the area that we were responsible 

is where it crosses public land. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. POOL. I think we have got a sliver, about a mile and a half, 

in South Dakota, but the majority of that crossing of public land 

occurs in Montana. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. All right. I appreciate that. I think that 

is important for the record because we have heard a lot of spin-up 

rhetoric here, and I just want to get to the facts. I went through 

some of the FEIS in the last hearing we had, and, you know, we 

hear about this jobs number. It gets batted all over, you know. I 

think we would want private sector investment, and this is $7 billion, I believe, in shovel ready, private sector construction jobs, and 

there are estimates of 20,000. 

Now, I think what Mr. Waxman referenced was actually only the 

construction jobs during the phase of the construction, but I know 

having been a small business owner for more than 2 decades that 

when you get involved in a big project, it is not—I mean, we were 

just in the radio business, but, you know, if I bought a transmitter, 

somebody had to build that thing, and I had to hire an engineer 

to install it, and I had to go through a lot of other efforts. 

123 

There were a lot of other indirect jobs associated, and I think 

that is maybe where the difference of opinion here is on the jobs. 

If you only looked at just exactly the, you know, several thousands 

of jobs that would be there for 2 years in an industry that has been 

devastated over the last 3 years I would take whatever jobs we 

could, and if there is no environmental impact on the Federal 

lands, and it doesn’t appear there would be. 

I think we can make the change Mr. Terry recommended to deal 

with the issue that Ms. Gaffney-Smith, if we change this bill to 

allow you to continue to have your statutory authority, that 

wouldn’t be a problem, would it? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. No. We would evaluate all the crossings 

and impacts under the current authority, statutory authorities in 

our—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And have you done that already? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. No, we haven’t done it. We have only received preconstruction notifications for certain aspects of the pipeline. 

Mr. WALDEN. I see. My time has expired. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time we will recognize the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the witnesses, and we had a witness from FERC that the 

way I recall his testimony was, one, they weren’t really equipped 

to do it, two, the timeline that is being imposed by this particular 

bill, 3548, was not realistic. And I believe what you are providing 

and what you bring to the equation of building this pipeline safely 

is invaluable and essential, and I don’t believe that this bill is the 

best method of accomplishing the building out of the Keystone 

Pipeline, which I support. I just don’t think this is the way to do 

it. 

My greater fear and we are going to have some other witnesses 

that may address some other implications, and that is unrealistic 

expectations of what this pipeline is going to provide this country. 

I am going to do this as briefly as I can. 

First of all, when it comes to price, fuel prices reduces economic 

growth at a very, very sensitive time in this country. High gas 

prices reduced economic growth in this country in 2012, by 0.5 percent when we know that total growth for the year we are looking 

at around 2 percent. So it was substantial. 

I do not believe that the Keystone Pipeline would reduce fuel 

prices, and that is what we are telling the American public, and 

we keep going on. I wish we had a hearing that would really explore the impact on price, because eventually it will be our constituents that will be dumbfounded when we complete the pipeline 

and they are still paying an extraordinary amount of money for a 

gallon of gasoline. 

Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder. I said 

this last week. Leading all exports in this country was fuel last 

year. So it is a global market. That is what we are in competition 

with, and this is from Tom Kloza, Chief Oil Analyst at Oil Price 

Information Service, which he said it is a world market and will 

go to the highest bidder. 

124 

At a Senate hearing the president of Shell back in May of last 

year said, simply stated, oil is a global commodity, and oil companies are price takers, not price makers. That is the same lesson 

that is going to be imposed on refiners. It is a global market. 

So who owns all the oil that is coming and is going to be stored 

somewhere? Well, that is really curious, and maybe we can understand global markets and how the prices are arrived at. This is a 

story, Dallas Morning News, 15th of May last year, some 70 percent of contracts for future oil delivery are now bought by financial 

speculators, largely big investment banks, and hedge funds who 

never take control of the oil. They just flip the contract for a quick 

profit. Only about 30 percent of oil contracts are bought by a purchaser that actually intends to use the oil such as an airline. That 

is according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which 

regulates trade in those contracts. 

Michael McMasters, Wall Street investor, testified before Congress repeatedly that speculators are pushing prices well beyond 

what the supply and the demand warrant. 

And then I want to end this by—until the early 1990s the ratio 

of speculative trades to trades made by commercial users of oil was 

tilted heavily towards the users of oil, but from 1991, forward the 

big financial players such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan won 

exemptions that freed them from limits on how much they could 

speculate in future markets. 

Now, we have attempted to do something about that, but the majority party has fought us tooth and nail on this, whether it is 

Dodd-Frank or anything else that addresses some sort of a regulatory scheme that will now allow the play in of futures and commodities to the detriment of the American consumers. This is all 

part of it, but we seem to be ignoring a holistic approach. 

Now what really concerns me is we are going to have a witness 

that is going to tell us that this may not be the answer to national 

security. Now, I think that it can be depending on how we use the 

raw product and the refined product that we derive from oil. But 

if, in fact, it is a global market, the only way you maintain that 

edge is somehow making sure that there is available, accessible, 

and affordable supply in the United States. 

But if you have investors that are charged with the fiduciary 

duty of making a good profit for their investors, and that is the 

American way, and I have no problem with that, what do you do? 

Do you keep it in the domestic market, or do you export it? 

So there is not just about the safety of the pipeline. I believe that 

I would rather be dependent on Mexico and Canada than Saudi 

Arabia and Venezuela. I mean, there is no doubt about that. Venezuela. But the problem we have is not a realistic approach, and 

I guess that is what really concerns me, and I am hoping to return 

for the witnesses that are going to be touching on some of the subject matter that I just touched on. I appreciate your testimony 

today. I think you are invaluable to this whole equation of building 

a safe Keystone Pipeline. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman, Mr. 

Terry. 

125 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, and I guess I am one that would like to 

submit items for the record, so Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 

consent that I may submit for the record a memorandum from the 

U.S. State Department, Mr. Keith Benes, dated June 22, 2011. 

And on the issue that my friend from St.—not St. Louis, San Antonio, a little further south, mentioned, it is on the record from the 

State Department’s review of this pipeline that eliminating transportation constraints from Cushing to Houston would not adversely 

affect Midwest gasoline consumers. In fact, it goes on and says that 

it would help crude prices decline considering that the transportation is consistent, reliable, and less expensive. 

Let us keep in mind that what we are talking about is around 

700,000 barrels initially going up to a million barrels that would 

completely offset the need for us to send tankers to Venezuela and 

fill up with their heavy crude and ship it up here. It defies 

logic—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might just say without objection that—— 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I submit that so I will put it up here. 

[The information follows:] 

126 


76343.066

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

DATE: 

MR. KEITH J. BENES 

ATIORNEY-ADVISER 

MEMORANDUM 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

CARMINE DIFIGLIO, Ph.D.1 C~ 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY ANALYSIS 

OFFICE OF POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

COMMENTS ON "THE TAR SANDS ROAD TO CHINA" 

JUNE 22, 2011 

The paper by Philip K. Verleger, "The Tar Sands Road to China",2 asserts that the Keystone XL pipeline, If 

approved by the State Department, would not transport Alberta's diluted bitumen (dilblt) to PADD III 

refineries. Verleger suggests that the dUbit would Instead be loaded on to tankers at Port Arthur for 

delivery to Asian refineries. 

This memorandum provides data and analysis about a number of issues raised In the paper by Dr. 

Verleger. It concludes that PADD III refiners will likely consume additional Canadian 011 sands well in 

excess of what would be provided by the Keystone XL pipeline. It also concludes that exports of 

Canadian oli sands from Port Arthur are unlikely. 

Alternative Routes to Asia 

There are three currently-proposed projects that could ship Canadian of! sands to Asia via pipeline to the 

British Columbia coast. We summarize below the capacities, distances and estimated shipment costs of 

these three projects as well as a possible rail optfon to the British Columbia coast and Verleger's "TarSands Road to Asia" (number 5 below). 

1. The Enbrldge Gateway pipeline from Edmonton to Kltimat 

a. Capacity: 525,000 bpd Initial 

b. Pipeline distance: 715 miles 

c. Sea voyage distance: 9872 nautical miles 

d. Estimated total shipment cost: $6/bbl 

2. The Kinder Morgan TMX Expansion to Vancouver 

a. Capacity: 400,000 bpd (in two stages) 

b. Pipeline distance: 725 miles 

c. Sea voyage distance: 10416 nautical miles 

I Significant contributions to this memorandum were made by Martin Tallett of EnSys Energy and Systems, Inc., as 

well as Peter Whitman and Thomas White In the Office of Policy Analysis. 

1 Phillip P. Verieger, "The Tar Sands Road to China", 2011 
127 


76343.067

d. Estimated total shipment cost: $7/bbl 

3. The Kinder Morgan TMX Northern leg to Kltlmat 

a. Capacity: 400,000 bpd 

b. Pipeline distance: 750 miles approx 

c. Sea voyage distance: 9872 nautical miles 

d. Estimated total shipment cost: $6/bbl 

4. Unit train from Edmonton to Kltimat 

a. Capacity: Not defined except that a single unit train terminal can process 1 or 2 65,000 

barrel trains per day 

b. Rail distance: 715 miles approx 

c. Sea voyage distance: 9872 nautical miles 

d. Estimated total shipment cost: $8-$12/bbI3 

5. "Tar Sands Route to China" 

a. Capacity: depends on availability via KXL or other pipelines 

b. Pipeline distance: 1704 miles 

c. Sea voyage distance: 20,596 nautical miles via Panama, 31,702 via Cape of Good Hope 

d. Estimated total shipment cost: $15jbbl 

Verleger discounts any Canadian pipeline to British Columbia: 

"Northern Gateway, however, faces significant objections from British Columbia residents, as 

well as First National tribes. over whose reservations the pipeline would pass. Under Canadian 

law, these objections can prove formidable and they might stop the project In Its tracks." 

Dr. Verleger's paper makes no mention of the Kinder Morgan alternatives (number 2 and 3 above), nor 

does it mention possible rail shipments to the British Columbia coast (number 4 above). Nonetheless, 

Verleger concludes that the Keystone Xl pipeline would be the only way Canadian 011 sands could be 

shipped to Asia. 

How Much 011 Sands would the Keystone Xl Pipeline Carry to the Gulf Coast? 

Dr. Verleger states that the Keystone XL pipeline would carry 1.1 million barrels/day of Canadian 011 

sands to the Gulf Coast.' We estimate that Keystone XL would have a capacity of 700 to 830 thousand 

barrels/day. Of this capacity, 200-250 thousand barrels/day would be devoted to Bakken and 

Midcontinent crude. This reduces the expected volume of Canadian dllblt to 450-630 thousand 

barrels/day. TransCanada has already secured contracts for 380 thousand barrels/day, leaving only 70-

l Preliminary estimate. 

• Verleger states "TransCamida has proposed an alternative line. The Keystone Xl expansion line would run south 

from Hardisty, Alberta, to Houston. The proposed line would carry 1.1 million barrels per day." It Is possible that 

Verleger is assuming that the Keystone Base and Extension are carrying Canadian 011 sands to the Gulf Coast 

Instead of Wood River/Patoka illinois. The Keystone XL Is the only TransCanada pipeline that would carry 011 sands 

to the Gulf Coast. It should also be noted that TransCanada has indicated that It will not seek a special permit to 

Increase pipeline throughput to 900 thousand barrels/day as previously estimated. 

2 
128 


76343.068

250 thousand barrels/day of dilbit capacity that has not found firm contract buyers but could be offered 

in the spot market. 

Impact of the Keystone Xl Pipeline on Midwest vs. Gulf Coast Oil Prices 

Dr. Verleger points out that Midwest refiners are not willing to pay as much for Canadian oil sands as 

Gulf Coast refiners. There are two reasons why this Is the case. Because of the congestion at Cushing, 

not enough oil from any in-land source Is getting to Gulf Coast refineries. The Cushing congestion will be 

alleviated in a few years as more pipeline capacity is built from Cushing to Houston. As the congestion Is 

alleviated, the current price distortion of WTI relative to Brent and under-pricing of landlocked crudes 

will be reduced or eliminated. The second and more important reason Gulf Coast refiners are willing to 

pay more for dilbit than Midwest refiners reflects differences between Midwest and Gulf Coast refining 

capacity. Having made investments to process heavier crude imports from Mexico and Venezuela (that 

are expected to decline, see below), PADD III can more easily process large volumes of dilblt. Thirty 

percent of the world's coking capacity is in PADD III. While PADD II refineries import and process 

significant volumes of Canadian oil sands, additional refining upgrades and capacity would be needed to 

process the projected supply growth of Canadian crudes. 

In Its National Energy Board filing, TransCanada makes the statements 

"Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently 

oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the 

USGC via the Keystone Xl Pipeline Is expected to strengthen Canadian crude 011 pricing 

in PADD II by removing this oversupply. This Is expected to increase the price of heavy 

crude to the equivalent cost of Imported crude. Similarly, if a surplus of light synthetic 

crude develops In PADD II, the Keystone Xl Pipeline would provide an alternate market 

and therefore help to mitigate a price discount.'" 

From this, Verleger concludes: 

"TransCanada, acting as a good monopolist, proposes to divert crude from Midwestern refiners 

so Canadian producers can get a price higher than the competitive prices, that Is, oil would be 

diverted until those refiners have to pay the same prices as Gulf Coast refiners." 

Verfeger's Interpretation of TransCanada's National Energy Board submission stretches beyond what Is 

stated. It is not clear why he uses the term "monopolist" to describe TransCanada's plan to move oil 

sands that would otherwise be oversupplied In PADD II to PADD III. TransCanada merely recognizes that 

PADD Ills oversupplied with crude, which by definition means the region is not in competitive 

equilibrium. PADD II is oversupplied because transportation constraints do not allow sufficient 

shipments of crude out of the region. As Or. Verleger points out, Midwest refiners used to pay more for 

oil because 011 had to flow north from the Gulf. Now, with Bakken crude, Canadian dlfbit and other landlocked supplies, oil needs to flow south. With adequate PADD II to PADD III pipelines, price discounts 

'The Keystone XL Pipeline Section 52 Application, Section 3: Supply and Market" Section 3.4.3, "Crude Pricing 

Impact" 

3 
129 


76343.069

currently enjoyed by Midwest refiners would diminish. This wouldn't cause a less competitive oil 

market. Midwest refiners would stili enjoy a $2.00 to $2.50' transportation cost advantage over Gulf 

Coast refiners. This is about one-tenth the current discount of WTI compared to Brent (approximately 

$20/barrel).' Current transport constraints give Midwest refiners a crude price advantage that is not 

justified by long-term transportation costs. Eliminating those constraints would produce a more 

competitive oil market. 

Effect on Midwest Gasoline Prices· 

Eliminating transportation constraints from Cushing to Houston would not adversely affect Midwest 

gasoline consumers. While Midwest refiners are currently benefiting from high crude discounts 

compared to PADD I and PADD III refiners, Midwest gasoline consumers are not benefiting from them. 

Retail gasoline prIces reflect the wholesale price of marginal gasoline supplies. In 2010, marginal 

gasoline supplies to the Midwest were from PADD ill (310 thousand barrels/day) and PADD I (180 

thousand barrels/day). With substantial additional volumes of light-sweet and other crudes accessible 

to Gulf Coast refineries, WTI prices would increase. Brent, Argus and other marker crude prices would 

decline. Crude costs to PADD I and PADD III refineries would be lower. Gasoline prices in all markets 

served by PADD I and III reflners would decrease, including the Midwest. 

Eliminating Cushing Congestion Benefits Domestic Oil Producers 

Verleger emphasizes how the Keystone XL pipeline would reduce transportation constraints for 

Canadian 011 sands. To quote; 

"Thus crude reaching the Gulf of Mexico from Canada will compete there with Imported crude. 

On the Gulf Coast, refiners will pay the cost of Imported crude for Canadian oil." 

However, the current price disparity between oil at Cushing and 011 In Houston is not merely a Canadian 

oil story. The following chart shows the current sources of 011 being delivered to Cushing. 

6 An estimate based on the tariffs on 011 pipelines of Similar length. 

1 Historically WTI has traded at slightly higher prices than Brent since WTlls lighter and sweeter than Brent. 

R Dr. Verleger states that Keystone XL pipeline would "extract another $2 to $4 billion from u.s. consumers" as a 

result of Increasing the value of currently land-locked 011 In the Midwest by increasing ils availability to the Gulf 

Coast. 

4 
130 


76343.070

Figure 1 Sources of 011 Into Cushing 

Sources of 011 Into Cushing 

(Pipeline Capacity, 1.1 million barrels/day) 

Canadian 

Other Domestic 

Bakken by rail 

Figure 1 shows that only 21% of oil deliveries to Cushing are from Canada. Consequently, Increased 

transport capacity from Cushing to Houston would enhance the aggregate value of domestic crude oil 

far more than the aggregate value of Canadian crude 0/1. 

Hgure 2 shows the currently proposed pipeline projects from Cushing. Taken together they could 

increase Cushing exports by 1.13 million barrels/day of which 1.10 million barrels/day would go south to 

the Gulf Coast. These projects would reduce or eliminate the current distortion of Midwest liS. Gulf 

Coast 011 prices caused by transportation constraints. 

Figure 2 Proposed Pipeline Projects Out of Cushing' 

Proposed New Pipeline Capacity Out of Cushing 

(1.13 million barrels/day) 

Magellan longhorn (to Gulf Coast) 

Enbridge Monarch (to Gulf Coast) 

Keystone XL - domestic crude (to 

Gulf Coast) 

81ue Knight Eagle North (to 

Oklahoma) 

Double E (to Gulf Coast) 

• Proposed and likely projects as of May 2011. Estimates for Enbrldge Monarch Include the upper Ilmit of 

expandable capacity. The estimates for Keystone Xl include only the estimated domestic crude shipments to the 

Gulf Coast (200 thousand barrels/day). If the estimate for Enbridge Monarch is take" at Its Initial capacity, the 

total additional capacity would be 0.98 million barrelS per day. 

5 
131 


76343.071

Canadian 011 Would Stili Be Shipped to the Gulf Coast without the Keystone Xl Pipeline 

If the Keystone XL pipeline is not approved, another pipeline proposal to ship oil sands from PADD II to 

PADD III would likely emerge that would not require a new U.S'/Canadian crosslng. IO Additional 

Canadian oil sands can be supplied to PADD II via the Enbrldge Mainline, Alberta Clipper, Keystone, and 

Keystone Extension. Taken together, these pipelines would allow Canadian 011 sands imports to increase 

by 1 million barrels per day without the Keystone XL pipeline (2015). Surplus capacity to Import 

Canadian oil sands is not expected to be exhausted until about 2020. If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, 

surplus capacity from existing projects would not be exhausted until at least 2025. 

As substantial capacity Is available to bring more Canadian oil sands into PAOD II without the Keystone 

XL pipeline, a domestic pipeline from PADD II to PADO III could ship as much Canadian all sands to 

Houston as the Keystone Xl. This alternative PADD II to PADD III pipeline would only require permits 

from affected Midwestern and Gulf Coast region states. 

To summarize, the current distortion of Midwest and Gulf Coast oil prices caused by the Cushing 

congestion will be alleviated whether or not the President approves or disapproves the Keystone XL 

pipeline permit application. In addition, if the Keystone XL pipeline is not constructed, more oil sands 

would still be delivered to Houston via Increased PADD II to PADD III capacity. 

The Jones Actll 

Verleger claims that the Jones Act would prevent waterborne shipments to a variety of Gulf Coast 

reflneries. This fails to account for 1) a network of crude 011 pipelines along the Gulf Coast, 2) the option 

to build a pipeline connection from the Keystone XL to the LOOP (thus connecting Keystone XL oil to a 

pipeline network serving many Gulf Coast refineries) and 3) the likelihood of swaps among refineries 

that would make physical transport of 011 sands unnecessary. Lastly, should some marine shipments be 

made, there currently exists an excess of Jones Act barge capacity in the GulL" 

Would Canadian Crude Be Exported from the Gulf? 

Verleger states: 

"The completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would create a surplus in the U.S. Gulf. This 

surplus would require some all to move from the Gulf to other markets unless existing Importers 

vacate the market. As noted below, existing Importers are not expected to concede market 

share to Canada. Instead, some Canadian oil will need to be exported from the Gulf. At this 

point, Asia would be clearing the market." 

10 EnSys Energy, Keystone XL Assessment, December 23, 2010, p. 28 

11 The Jones Act (Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, P.L. 66-261) requires that all goods transported 

by water between u.s. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed In the United States, owned by U,S. citizens, 

and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. 

12 U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, Coastal Tank Vessel Market Snapshot, 2009, June 

2010, p. 9. 

6 
132 


76343.072

Would 450-630 thousand barrels/day of additional dilbit shipments create a surplus In the U.S. Gulf? 

We can answer this question by looking at current 011 Imports into PADD III, evaluating whether the 

most important suppliers will be able to maintain these supplies and consider whether any declining 

supplies would best be replaced with dilbit. 

Table 2 011 Imports Into PADD III {Selected Countries} 

Thousand Barrels Per Oay as of March 11, 2011 

All Countries 5,097 

Saudi Arabia 706 

Nigeria 518 

Canada 117 

Mexico 1,170 

Venezuela 901 

Others 1,685 

Note that the largest source of PADD III Imports is Mexico (1.1 million barrels/day). However, Mexican 

oil imports to the United States have been in decline. As shown In Figure 3, between 2006 and 2010, 

imports from Mexico have declined by 0.5 million barrels/day from a previous peak of 1.6 million barrels 

per day. There is every reason to expect this trend to continue. The Mexican Cantarell field is 

experiencing declines (dropping from 2.1 million barrels/day In 2004 to less than 1 million barrels/day by 

200913). The prospects do not look promiSing to offset losses of Cantarell with 011 from other major 

Mexican fields such as Chicontepec Basin (poor permeability) and Ku-Maloob-Zaap (poor 011 quality). 011 

imports from Mexico (PADD Ill's largest foreign supplier) are declining and are expected to decline 

further. According to the International Energy Agency's 2010 Medium Term Oil and Gas Report, 

Mexican production Is expected to decline by 500 thousand barrels per day between 2010 and 2015." 

Figure 3 Annual U.S. 011 Imports from Mexico 

AnnulII U.S. Imports from Mexico of Crude Oil 

2.000 

(,';. 

c 1.500 & . . . ~ . 1.000 0:> 

~ 

" . .. n 

:l . . ~ 500 . . . 

0 . . 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 

13 Energy Information Administration, htt,!'!lwww.ela.gov!elllill!Lcabs!Mexico!pdf.pdf 

" International Energy Agency, Mid Term Oil and Gas Markets, 2010, p. 130 

7 

. . . . 

. . . 

2005 2010 
133 


76343.073

Venezuela Is the second largest supplier of PADD III imports. Verleger believes that Venezuela will 

"work hard to maintain Its arrangements with buyers due to the unique characteristics of its crude" and 

places great stress on the fact that certain refiners have contracts to purchase Venezuelan crude. 

However, as shown In Figure 4, Venezuelan oil supplies to the U.S. are In decline. Venezuela Is 

increasing its focus on markets in Cuba, China, and other non-Japanese Asian countries. Venezuelan 

production is expected to Increase but their exports to Asia will also Increase, especially as the Panama 

Canalis expanded to allow larger tankers. Taken together, U.S. Imports of crude 011 from Mexico and 

Venezuela are about 1 million barrels/day lower than their previous peak levels. With an expected 

decline of Mexican crude production of SOD thousand barrels per day and the likelihood of increased 

exports of Venezuelan crude to Asia, current heavy oil imports to PADD III are likely to decrease by a 

significant amount within the next five years. 

Figure 4 Annual U,S, 011 Imports from Venezuela 

Annual U.S. Imports from Venezuela of Crude Oil 

I."O~ 

;;. 1.200 0 

& 1,000 

-" 800 ~ 

'" 600 ~ 

~ ;00 

~ 200 

1980 1985 1990 2000 2005 2010 

Figure 4 also offers a useful commentary on Verleger's claim that, In 1987, Saudi Arabia aggressively 

priced its crude to prevent Venezuela from gaining a foothold in the u.s. market. Looking at Figure 4, 

this could not have been a very successful strategy since Venezuelan Imports to the u.s. steadily 

increased from about 400 thousand barrels/day in 1986 to 1.4 million barrels per day 10 years later. 

Verleger's overall view that oil exporting countries will find it necessary to maintain U.S. oil markets Is 

also inconsistent with trends In the world oil market. The International Energy Agency expects that 

Increases in OPEC production will not keep up with Increases in oil demand and non·OPEC investment 

will be needed to meet new demand, especially in nonconventional oil.'s Middle Eastern producers will 

not have any trouble finding takers for their crude. Even if, as Verleger claims, Saudi Arabia makes price 

concessions to maintain 700 thousand barrels per day of exports to PADD III, PADD III refiners import 

between 5-6 million barrels/day of crude 011. PADD III crude Imports from its largest suppliers {1.2 

IS International Energy Agency, 2010 World Energy Outlook 

8 
134 


76343.074

million barrels/day from Mexico and 0.9 million barrels/day from Venezuela) are declining. Several 

PADD III reflnerles are configured to process 011 from Mexico and Venezuela.'6 With these supplies in 

decline, there Is a significant market opportunity for competitively-priced Canadian dilbit to offset lost 

heavy oil supplies. There is no reason to believe, as Verleger asserts, that PADD III refiners would not 

use the Canadian 011 shipped in the Keystone XL pipeline (450-630 thousand barrelS/day). As mentioned 

above, TransCanada has already secured contracts for 380 thousand barrels/day, leaving only 70-250 

thousand barrels/day of Keystone XL cupacltv that has not yet found buyers. The Gulf Coast appetite for 

Canadian 011 sands in PADD III will be much higher than can be supplied by Just the Keystone Xl pipeline. 

Refinery modeling analysis shows that PADD III imports of Canadian oil sands could rise to 1.8 million 

barrels per day by 2030 (using a modeling sCenario that assumes no additional oil sands pipelines to the 

British Columbia coast). 17 

summary and Conclusions 

Without a surplus of heavy oil In PADD III, there would be no economic Incentive to ship Canadian oil 

sands to Asia via Port Arthur. Dllblt Is more suited to many PADD III refineries than more expensive 011 

from other sources. Many of these refineries rely on declining supplies of Mexican and Venezuelan 

heavy crudes (2.1 million barrels/day). They would be natural customers for Increased supplies of 

Canadian di/bit. Shipments of Keystone XL oil sands that are not under contract would be quite small 

(70-250 thousand barrels/day), especially when compared to the potential PADD III market for dilblt (as 

high as 1.8 million barrels/day by 2030). Consequently, It Is not likely that refiners would Import more 

011 from other sources in order to replace dilbit that is already in Port Arthur. " 

We also expect that the Cushing congestion will be reduced or eliminated whether or not the Keystone 

XL pipeline is constructed. There are several proposed pipeline projects to move oil south to Houston 

(1.1 million barrels per day"). These projects, whether or not they include the Keystone XL pipeline, 

would reduce the crude price discounts now enjoyed by Midwest refiners. Nonetheless, these pipeline 

projects would not Increase gasoline prices to Midwest consumers. 

,. Venezuelan crude tends to be low gravity (18-20), high TAN and relatively low sulfur. Maya Is low gravity 

(around 22), high sulfur and low TAN. Dilblt Is moderate sulfur, moderate TAN and low gravity (around 20) 

17 EnSys Energy, Keystone XL Assessment, December 23, 2010, The 1.8 million barrels per day estimate is from a 

scenario that assumes the EIA Annual Energy Outlook Reference Case U.S. 011 demand, completion of the Keystone 

XL pipeline, completion a PADD II to PADD III pipeline and no new pipelines from Alberta to British Columbia (I.e., 

Enbrldge Gateway pipeline, Kinder Morgan TMX expansion or TMX Northern Leg). Scenarios that assume 

completion of one or more of these pipelines to the Canadian Pacific Coast show less use of Canadian all sands In 

PADD III and Increased PADD III Imports from other countries. 

18 It should also be noted that the Keystone XL-Port Arthur-China route would have higher shipping costs to Asia 

th.n any alternative route through British Columbia, Induding rail shipments from Alberta to KIUmat (pp. 1-2). 

1. As shown In Figure 2, current proposed or likely projects would ship 1.1 million barrels/day of oil from Cushing to 

110uston. While the Keystone Xl pipeline Is counted among these projects, we only Include the estimated 200 

thousand barrels/day of domestic oil that would otherwise stay In PADD II, not shipments of Canadian oil. 

9 
135 

Mr. TERRY. But it simply defies logic to me that when you have 

a transportation system that the State Department even testified 

was safer, the safest means of transport, the most environmentally 

safe transport that there be arguments that it not add to our energy security. 

And then secondly on the jobs, you know, it befuddles most 

Americans as polling has shown that this President denied the permit, and the jobs that would be created if you look into the union 

hall at the—for the laborers or the IBEW, there is people sitting 

on the bench waiting to have their names on the list to be called 

that when this starts they go to work. Right now in Nebraska there 

is an engineering company that has ceased doing work because of 

the denial of this permit on the Nebraska route. 

And, yes, it befuddles me and most of Americans when my 

friends on the other side of the aisle say that, geez, 6,000 direct 

jobs out on the pipeline is not enough for them, and by the way 

it is only temporary. Well, I don’t know an infrastructure project 

that isn’t temporary. So evidently we are against all infrastructure 

now. It just—it befuddles me why they would oppose it. 

Now, Ms. Gaffney-Smith, I appreciate your testimony here today 

and with the help of the State Department you have made some 

valid points that we realized and have decided before this hearing 

today, even after last week, that we needed to make sure that we 

are clear in the fact that the intent of this bill was the Presidential 

authority needed to be moved away from the White House to an 

agency that had expertise in pipelines to make a decision on 

whether it is safety and soundness of the pipeline versus the politics that seem to have overwhelmed this issue. 

Now, with that making that correction that recognizes that we 

aren’t usurping the Corps of Engineers’ powers, we want you to 

make that review. Do you have any objections to this legislation? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. I can’t speak to legislation where I haven’t 

seen the actual language, but it would be appropriate, I think, for 

us to look at that and see if it, in fact, puts us back. 

Mr. TERRY. Can I ask why when we asked the Corps of Engineers last week why—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Your microphone. 

Mr. TERRY. That you didn’t want to be here, but you are here to 

be an opposing, hostile witness. 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. I am not aware that an official invitation 

was provided. 

Mr. TERRY. Let me ask you, Mr. Pool, in the State of Nebraska— 

thank you. I hear it now. In the State of Nebraska what Federal 

lands did the original route take? Did the original route go through 

an Federal lands? 

Mr. POOL. Yes, Congressman. There was a small piece of land 

administered by BOR, Bureau of Reclamation, had to do with the 

canal area, that we would have—— 

Mr. TERRY. That was South Dakota, wasn’t it? 

Mr. POOL. No. That is Nebraska. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Mr. POOL. Yes, and so—— 

136 

Mr. TERRY. All right. My time is up. I am sorry. I will have to 

get—I will submit that one for the record for you to get back to me 

on. 

Mr. POOL. I will do. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I 

would like to make a couple quick observations. 

In 1970, Scoop Jackson and I wrote the National Environmental 

Policy Act. It was to depoliticize the approval of projects and to see 

to it that we had the information we needed when we were going 

into those kinds of questions. So it required an environmental impact statement. That can be speeded up and properly so. But I 

would caution that if you speed it up too fast you are going to repoliticize this and make a fine mess out of the thing and cause no 

end of trouble and litigation. So I would beg you not to do this. 

I say that parenthetically I want to support this legislation. I 

think the Canadians are going to do this whether we like it or not, 

and they are either going to build a pipeline going west or going 

south, and it is better in my view that if that pipeline goes anywhere, it goes south to the United States. It will be a much more 

dependable source of energy for the United States. 

So I would urge my colleagues not to drive away members like 

me by moving too fast on this, because if you do, you will just simply create a wealth of litigation. The lawyers will have a fine time, 

make lots of money, and the business of the country will be, in fact, 

delayed by carelessness in this committee. 

Having said that, first question here to Mr. Pool, did the State 

Department refer the application to your Department or to the 

BLM? Yes or no? 

Mr. POOL. Say again, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Did the State Department refer the application to 

your Department or to the BLM? Which? 

Mr. POOL. The—well, the application that we received was from 

the applicant for the segment of public land that was coming across 

Montana. It is a right-of-way application. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Ms. Gaffney-Smith, did the State Department refer the application to the Corps? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. No. Like the Department of Interior, the 

application came from the applicant. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Did BLM provide views on the permit application? Answer yes or no. 

Mr. POOL. Provide what, sir? 

Mr. DINGELL. Did BLM provide views on the permit application? 

Please answer yes or no. 

Mr. POOL. We were part of the environmental impact process 

that was led by the State Department, and so the mandates that 

we have obligations with in terms of issuing a right-away grant in 

Montana then we did review the application in the context of the 

overall NEPA product. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Ms. Gaffney-Smith, did the Corps provide 

views on the permit application? 

137 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. In three Corps districts in Galveston, Fort 

Worth, and Tulsa District 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. 

Mr. DINGELL. So your answer is yes? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Under H.R. 3548 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? 

Mr. POOL. Congressman, I would say no, it is not enough time. 

Mr. DINGELL. Very good. Ms. Gaffney-Smith, the same question 

to you. Is 30 days enough time for the Corps to submit its views? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. No, I don’t believe so. 

Mr. DINGELL. Do you believe—this goes to both, yes or no. Do 

you believe that FERC has the experience that BLM has to review 

a permit of this scope? Please answer yes or no. 

Mr. POOL. I don’t believe they do. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Madam. 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. No, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now, Ms. Gaffney-Smith, do you believe 

that FERC has the experience that the Corps has to review a permit of this scope? That is practically the same question as the prior 

one, but it is a little more subtle. Yes or no? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. No. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, and 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 could go on for years. If that occurs, we will then find ourselves in the splendid position of having 

to reenter this issue with all of the politics that goes to it and all 

the difficulty, or we could begin moving to try to 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 splendid fight which 

will generate monstrous ill will and create a situation where there 

will actually be more delay rather than less. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. 

We do have votes on the floor, but we do have about 6 minutes 

left, so Ms. Capps, I believe you were here, so I would recognize 

you for a period of 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and because I know Mr. 

Markey also was here and wants to speak, I am asking Mr. Markey, do you want some of my time? OK. I will do it. 

I come from an area that is energy producing as well, and I am 

very impressed with—I have one image in my mind because it was 

you, Mr. Pool, when you were in charge of the BLM for the State 

of California, and I was newly elected, who escorted me for the first 

138 

time to see what we call the Shangri-La of the West, the Carrizo 

Plain, eastern portion of San Luis Obispo County, fragile ecosystem 

that is remnant of the way the land was 300 years ago, in which 

the—all of the vested interests, the mineral rights, the cattle 

ranchers, and all of the stakeholders have found a way to preserve 

the natural history under the leadership of the BLM. And also 

make that an economically viable area. 

Oil and gas industry have all—have their role there, and I picture this pipeline going through the Carrizo Plain, and I am very 

concerned that we take the time that is needed to preserve in the 

Midwest what I know from my area to be the possibility of protecting the land as well as furthering economic interest. And I see 

this latest attempt by House Republicans to short-circuit the review process, and I want to ask you because I know your expertise, 

Mr. Pool, and I also have a number of Army Corps projects in my 

district as well and have had the pleasure of working with that 

agency. 

Mr. Pool, would it make sense for the Bureau of Land Management or the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue permits for a pipeline with an unknown route, which is what we have before us 

today? 

Mr. POOL. Congresswoman, I can only speak to the segment in 

Montana that we are knowledgeable of that area, and the application is very precise as to where it will be located. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right, but now for the further part of it you have 

no knowledge exactly where the precise, about the preciseness. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. POOL. Generally speaking we do on a map. I mean, we see 

the whole delineation of the pipeline from north to south, but if it 

doesn’t fall within public land jurisdiction, then it is not going to 

pertain to BLM. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. Would you like to respond and then I want to 

turn to my colleague? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. Can you repeat the question, please? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Does it make sense for the—does the Army Corps 

of Engineers typically provide permits for pipeline projects when 

the route of the pipeline is unknown? 

Ms. GAFFNEY-SMITH. No. We only evaluate permits for applications that have been submitted by project applicants that have a 

project. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And I would like to yield the balance of my time to 

Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. Under this bill are there 

any guarantees that all of the friendly Canadian oil that is sent 

through the pipeline will be sold here in the United States? No. No. 

So let me get this plan right. 

Step one. TransCanada puts the dirtiest oil on the planet into 

the brand new pipeline that the Republicans are giving them. 

Step two. TransCanada sends that oil to the Gulf Coast where 

they can make billions more than where they currently sell it in 

the Midwest. 

Step three. Refineries in the Gulf Coast re-export it to other 

countries at world oil prices and don’t pay any taxes for doing it. 

139 

Step four. Americans get higher gas prices and no increase in energy security. 

And step five. TransCanada and the sheiks in Saudi Arabia 

laugh all the way to the bank. 

That is pretty much what this bill allows. Make no mistake. This 

bill is not about energy security. It is not about jobs. It is about 

oil company profits plain and simple. This bill just turns the 

United States into a middleman in a multi-national oil deal between Canada, South America, Europe, or China. 

The Republican slogan last year was ‘‘drill here, drill now, pay 

less.’’ Now we are letting Canada drill here, ship here, and re-export so all we have to do is pay more, both in terms of money at 

the gas pump and costs to the environment. 

Today I along with Mr. Waxman and Congressman Cohen and 

Connolly and Welsh will introduce a bill to require that if this pipeline is permitted, the oil will stay here to benefit Americans. If we 

are going to go to the extreme lengths of legislating the construction of an environmentally-destructive pipeline to benefit a Canadian company, we should at least be sure that we in the United 

States can realize the energy security and consumer benefits that 

we have been told the project will bring. Let us play it straight 

about the Straits of Hormuz. Without my bill this pipeline will not 

do a thing to enhance the security of our country or of our brave 

men and women stationed all over the world for purposes of protecting our fossil fuel interests. 

We need a bill, if it does pass, that guarantees the oil from this 

pipeline stays here in the United States. The CEO of TransCanada 

sat right there and said he would not support that legislation. That 

is all we have to know about our relationship with this TransCanada company. This oil is to be exported around the world, not 

to keep prices lower here in the United States. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might say that of all the U.S. petroleum products today we are currently exporting less than 5 percent. 

At this time—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The number one export for the United States in 

2011, was oil petroleum products. That was the number one export 

of all products in the United States. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We want to increase our exports and—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Not of oil. Not our security. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All the Members are gone. We still have a vote 

on the floor, so I am going to release this panel. Ms. GaffneySmith, thank you for being here. Mr. Pool, thank you for being 

here. 

We will recess for about I would say 35 or 40 minutes, and then 

we will come back, and we will begin with panel two. Thank you. 

We are in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 11:57 a.m. the same day.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I will call the hearing back to order, and before 

I introduce the witnesses I—as we were finishing up with the first 

panel there was a lot of back and forth about whether or not we 

were going to release the first panel, and in consultation with the 

majority, a decision was made to release them, but I had already 

140 

told Mr. Bilbray before he left that he could come back and ask 

them questions, and since they are not here, I am going to recognize Mr. Bilbray for 3 minutes to say whatever he wanted to say 

about the Corps of Engineers or whatever the issue was. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, I 

appreciate you giving me the time. It is frustrating that you, you 

know, think you have an agreement and I think some of these 

questions are important, but I will raise them even with the Army 

Corps here because I have got a little experience in 404 permit. I 

was actually cited or given my Miranda rights for a potential violation of the 404 permit because I was involved in damming up sewage coming in from Mexico, and they constituted a sewage break 

as possible navigable waters. So it is very near and dear. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk here in Washington, 

DC, about certain jobs, aggressive job programs by the Federal 

Government, and the Tennessee Authority was one of them that 

has been cited again and again, and I would like to point out to 

everybody that the Tennessee Authority, though it crossed thousands of so-called navigable waterways, never received one 404 permit because there was no such thing as a 404 permit there. 

So when we talk about all these great job programs as ways of 

stimulating the economy that were in the past, we have got to remember just how much regulatory oversight and regulatory obstructionism de facto has occurred since then, that there were 

things that we have done in the past that would not be legal to do 

under today’s regulations, and we need to address that. 

The other issue I wanted to raise was the fact that though it 

takes a 404 permit to build a—put a pipeline over a navigable waterway to transport oil, there is no 404 permit required to transport the same oil by truck over a bridge that spans a navigable waterway, the same way there is no requirement for a 404 permit for 

a train to go across a bridge that spans a navigable waterway, even 

though statistically the risk of having spills caused by truck and 

train transport into those navigable waterways is much higher. 

There is also the issue of the fact that no one talks about is they 

look at the risk of the pipeline but don’t look at the no-project option risk that if you transport the same oil that 1,700 miles, it is 

87 times more dangerous to human life that an accident would 

occur than with transport by oil. 

So as—when we get into these issues, if somebody has worked 

in environmental agencies, have had the privilege of being a regulator, I think the environmental impact of the no-project option is 

one that any reasonable person who really cares about the environment has to understand. And the fact that the State Department 

has admitted that the transport of this oil by alternative sources 

on the same route or in any route related to it would be many 

times more polluting than the use of a pipeline, I am shocked that 

the same State Department, though, cannot quantify how many 

metric tons a year would be admitted by going to those other alternative transports, the truck and the train. 

I mean, coming from California and working on the Air Resources Board we would tell you down to the minute of what it is 

because we use good science to make those decisions. The State Department admits that the air pollution impacts for transport by the 

141 

alternatives are higher than the transport of this pipeline. So I 

think in all fairness the adverse environmental impact of the noproject option has not been given a fair hearing, has not been identified and quantified in a responsible way. And before you start 

turning down these projects, you have got to look at what is going 

to be the impact to the environment before you do that. 

And let me just close. One of the things I am really concerned 

about is that Canada is being treated like we can’t trust Canada 

with their environment. I think their history on environmental 

issues is something that really puts into question why we approved 

the many crossings in Mexico and we are holding up this one to 

Canada. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. 

At this time I would like to—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I understand Mr. Engel would like to have his 3 

minutes on our side as well—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Sure. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. And I hope he can be recognized. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Absolutely. 

Mr. Engel, you are recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes. Yes. I will yield to the—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. I want—I thank you for yielding because this last 

statement by my colleague from California made no sense to me. 

He is criticizing the different alternatives of bringing these tar 

sands down from Canada and saying if it is done by railroad as opposed to a pipeline. The real issue is whether they are going to do 

these tar sands at all because if they can’t bring it into the United 

States, they are not going to develop those tar sands, and in developing those tar sands, which is the dirtiest source of coal, they 

have to spend so much energy to refine it sufficiently to have it go 

through a pipeline and maybe on a train. At some point it is going 

to have to be refined, and the energy used to refine it adds to the 

greenhouse gases. 

So I just want people to understand there is not just a question 

of how it is going to be transported. If it is going to be transported, 

a pipeline is a way we often use to transport these things. We have 

pipelines, by the way. We are not against pipelines but any pipeline ought to be reviewed by the appropriate agencies, and the two 

witnesses we had on the first panel who are going to be taken out 

of their opportunity to review any proposal, and, of course, this bill 

isn’t about pipelines. It is only about one specific pipeline that is 

going to be given a treatment that no other pipeline has had, and 

that is—nobody reviews it. If they review it, they have 30 days, 

and they got to come up with the right conclusion. 

That is a special interest bill earmarked for this one project, and 

it is really troubling because we have had—we are going to be adding to the greenhouse gases which not just affects Canada but the 

whole world at a time when we ought to be reducing greenhouse 

gases. We are going to be committed to that source of energy where 

we ought to be looking for other ways to use less energy and make 

142 

us more independent. I think our witnesses on the second panel 

have more to say about that issue. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding part of his time. 

Mr. ENGEL. I would like to reclaim my time and say, you know, 

I have an open mind in general about the whole issue of Keystone, 

but I have—I am very concerned about this. Removing all Federal 

review of all agencies except FERC and then mandating that 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 that this committee has had, and I am 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. WAXMAN. 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 from these tar sands, and that is what I meant 

to say. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am glad you were not talking about coal. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. We are not. I wouldn’t want to take you on 

on that issue. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to introduce the panel, 

the second panel. We have with us Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson, United States Army. He was originally from California, and we have Mr. Randall Thompson, who is a rancher in 

Nebraska, and we welcome you to the hearing. We appreciate your 

being here very much, and at this time, General Anderson, I will 

recognize you for your 5-minute opening statement, and I think the 

little box on the table there, a red light will come on when the 5 

minutes is up. So you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF STEVEN M. ANDERSON, BRIGADIER GENERAL (RETIRED), UNITED STATES ARMY; AND RANDALL F. 

THOMPSON, NEBRASKA RANCHER 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN M. ANDERSON 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve Anderson, 

a concerned citizen and part owner of a service-disabled-veteranowned small business based in Knoxville, Tennessee. I would like 

to begin by thanking the subcommittee for this opportunity as well 

as thanking my President for the courageous decision he made to 

deny the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

Frankly, as a political conservative and a long-time registered 

Republican, I don’t often agree with President Obama, but on this 

matter he absolutely got it right. I strongly oppose the Keystone 

XL Pipeline because it will degrade our national security. The critical element is simply this: The pipeline keeps our great Nation adVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:04 Nov 28, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-10~1.ENE\112-10~1.ENE WAYNE
143 

dicted to oil, a dependence that makes us both strategically and 

operationally vulnerable. As a retired general officer with over 31 

years of service, I believe that I am fully qualified to comment on 

both of these vulnerabilities. 

The pipeline will keep us dependent upon outside sources to 

meet most of our energy needs. In reality Keystone only addresses 

a symptom of our illness, the source of our oil. It does nothing to 

cure the disease itself, which is our overreliance on oil, and as nations like China and India continue to demand more oil themselves, 

competition will increase and such international tension threatens 

our security and stability that we enjoy today. 

Additionally, continued carbon-based energy consumption drives 

CO2 emissions that will lead to climate change and increasingly 

catastrophic weather events. The potential instability puts us all at 

risk. 

Furthermore, the pipeline keeps us strategically vulnerable because our economy will remain petrocentric, and many thousands 

of companies developing clean energy technologies and providing 

renewable energy solutions won’t grow capacity and capability as 

quickly as America needs. I believe Keystone will set back the alternative energy industry in this country 20 years. 

Now, 2 weeks ago I read that Dubai will invest $2.7 billion in 

solar energy next year. Now, Dubai is an emirate surrounded by 

the world’s largest oil fields. Their economy is 250 times smaller 

than ours, yet they are astute enough to see the consequences of 

an oil-dependent economy and are willing to invest now in renewable energy in a big way. Why aren’t we? And because we are not 

fully committed to developing renewable energy capabilities, our 

soldiers in harm’s way are operationally vulnerable, too. 

Serving for 15 months as General Petraeus’s senior logistician in 

Iraq, I struggled with the challenge of providing 3 million gallons 

of fuel every day to sustain our forces. I saw the huge impact of 

not having any renewable energy systems and being completely dependent upon oil-based power generation. 

In consideration of the fully burdened cost of fuel in the combat 

zone, taxpayers have been spending well over $30 billion annually 

for our fuel needs. That is with a B, billion, and now that Pakistan 

has cut off our access to Afghanistan it will be even higher this 

year. But the dollar cost doesn’t concern me near as much as the 

human cost. 

Over 1,000 American troops have been killed during the wars in 

Iraq and Afghanistan executing fuel missions. We should all be 

outraged by this loss of life, and to make matters worse, our oil addiction is empowering our enemy. Our long supply lines provide 

thousands of convenient targets, and the revenues from satiating 

our oil habit bring the enemy the resources they use to kill us. 

Imagine the benefits to our military if they were fighting a much 

less-capable enemy. Imagine leveraging solar, wind, and geothermal technologies to end the war sooner to save billions of dollars and soldier lives. 

Now, allow me also to comment on the jobs issues associated 

with this pipeline. As a former soldier I am extremely concerned 

of the high unemployment rates for our vets. Of course I want more 

in employment opportunities for my brethren, but they need jobs 

144 

with staying power. They need careers. America is best served by 

an economic climate that generates jobs for vets for 100 years, not 

100 days, and every job that the pipeline produces, a clean energy 

economy could produce a thousand. 

Bottom line, the pipeline feeds an addiction that makes us less 

secure and enables our enemies. Now is the time to make the hard 

choices and deal with this disease head on and put our future economic prosperity in the capable hands of middle America rather 

than big oil. I stand before you today absolutely convinced that the 

national mission and focus that put a man on the moon 42 years 

ago can once again prevail. Stopping this pipeline today will help 

set the conditions needed such that our innate American will to 

win and entrepreneurial drive will succeed in breaking our terrible 

addiction to oil. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] 

145 


76343.075

ANDERSON OPENING STATEMENT: 

Good morning, my name is Steve Anderson, a concerned citizen and 

part owner of a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business based 

in Knoxville, Tennessee. I would like to begin by thanking the subcommittee for this opportunity, as well as thanking my President for the 

courageous decision he made to deny the Keystone XL pipeline. Frankly, 

as a political conservative and a long-time registered Republican, I don't 

often agree with President Obama, but on this matter he absolutely got it 

right. 

I strongly oppose the Keystone XL pipeline because it will degrade our 

national security. The critical element is simply this: the pipeline keeps 

our great nation addicted to oil, a dependence that makes us both 

strategically and operationally vulnerable. As a retired general officer 

with over 31 years of service, I believe I'm fully qualified to comment on 

both of these vulnerabilities. 

This pipeline will keep us dependent upon outside energy sources to 

meet most of our energy needs. In reality, Keystone only addresses a 

symptom of our illness -- the source of our oil; it does nothing to cure the 

disease itself, which is our overreliance on oil. And, as nations like 

China and India continue to demand more oil themselves, competition 

will increase. Such international tension threatens the security and 

stability we enjoy today. 

Additionally, continued carbon-based energy consumption drives C02 

emissions that may lead to climate change and increasingly catastrophic 

weather events. This potential instability puts us at risk as well. 

Furthermore, the pipeline keeps us strategically vulnerable because our 

economy will remain petro-centric, and many thousands of companies 

developing clean energy technologies and providing renewable energy 

solutions won't grow capacity and capability as quickly as America needs. 

I believe Keystone will set back our alternative energy industry twenty 

years. 

Two weeks ago I read that Dubai will invest $2.7B in solar energy next 

year. Now Dubai is an emirate surrounded by the world's largest oil 

fields and their economy is 250 times smaller than ours, yet they are 

astute enough to see the consequences of an oil-dependent economy 

and are willing to invest now in renewable energy in a huge way. Why 

aren't we? 

And because we are not fully committed to developing renewable energy 

capabilities, our soldiers in harm's way are operationally vulnerable, too. 
146 


76343.076

Serving for 15 months as General Petraeus' senior logistician in Iraq, I 

struggled with the challenge of providing 3M gallons of JP8 fuel every 

day to sustain our forces. I saw the huge impact of not having any 

renewable energy systems and being completely dependent upon oilbased power generation. 

In consideration of the fully burdened cost of fuel in the combat zone, 

taxpayers have been spending well over $30B annually for our fuel 

needs. And now that Pakistan has cut off our access to Afghanistan, it 

will be even higher this year. 

But the dollar cost doesn't concern me as much as the human cost. 

Over 1,000 American troops have been killed during our wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan executing fuel missions - we should all be outraged over 

this loss of life. 

And to make matters worse, our oil addiction is empowering our enemy. 

Our long supply lines provide thousands of convenient targets, and the 

revenues from satiating our oil habit provide our enemy the resources to 

kill us. 

Imagine the benefits to our military if they were fighting a much less 

capable enemy ... Imagine leveraging solar, wind and geothermal 

technologies to end the war sooner, save billions of dollars and soldier 

lives. 

Allow me to also comment on the jobs issue associated with this pipeline 

As a former soldier, I am extremely concerned about the high 

unemployment rates of our veterans. Of course, I want more 

employment opportunities for my brethren, but they need jobs with 

staying power - they need careers. America is best served by an 

economic climate that generates jobs for vets for 100 years, not just 100 

days. And for every job the pipeline produces, a clean energy economy 

could produce a thousand. 

Bottom Line, this pipeline feeds an addiction that makes us less secure 

and enables our enemies. Now is the time to make hard choices and 

deal with this disease head on - and put our future economic prosperity 

in the capable hands of Middle America rather than Big Oil. 

I stand before you today absolutely convinced that the national mission 

focus that put a man on the moon 42 years ago can once again prevail. 

Stopping this pipeline today will help set the conditions needed such that 

our innate American will to win and entrepreneurial drive will succeed in 

breaking our terrible addiction to oil. 

Thank you again for inviting me here today and I look forward to your 

questions. 
147 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, General Anderson. 

Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF RANDALL F. THOMPSON 

Mr. THOMPSON. My name is Randy Thompson. I am from 

Martell, Nebraska. I am here as a Nebraska citizen and landowner. 

I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to be here today. 

I would like to start my testimony today by thanking President 

Obama for making the right decision by denying the permit for the 

Keystone XL Pipeline. I am proud to think that the voices of Nebraskans had an impact on his decision. Those of us who live and 

work along the proposed path of this pipeline applaud him for placing our welfare ahead of the interests of big oil companies. 

As a lifelong Nebraskan I can honestly tell you that I have never 

witnessed any project that has stirred the emotions of my fellow 

Nebraskans like the Keystone XL has. Contrary to what you may 

have heard from some of our elected officials, I can assure you that 

the dust has not settled in Nebraska on this issue. 

TransCanada has built a mountain of distrust among the ordinary citizens of our State and either with their voluntary agreement to move the pipeline out of the Sandhills we remain very 

skeptical. Many Nebraskans, including myself, view TransCanada 

as an overly-aggressive company who thought they could come in 

and intimidate and bully their way across our State, and having 

witnessed TransCanada’s actions during the application process 

has made us weary of what they would do if they were empowered 

by a pre-mature permit. And I fear that an early permit would 

place a tremendous amount of pressure on the State of Nebraska 

to hurry through its review process. 

TransCanada has been granted plenty of free passes and now 

they seek yet another. They want their political allies to free them 

from the tangled mess that they themselves help to create. Perhaps 

it is time for the free passes to come to an end. If the Keystone 

XL truly has merit, then it should be able to withstand a rigorous 

and comprehensive review that it deserves and has not gotten. 

If this pipeline is built, thousands of us in the heartlands will 

have to live and work next to it for the rest of our lives and probably for the rest of my kids and my grandkids’ lives. It will cross 

hundreds of our waterways, our lakes and streams, and it will only 

get riskier with the passage of time. 

Short circuiting the review process would be an injustice and, in 

fact, a gross injustice to all of us that have to live and work along 

the proposed path of this pipeline. Many of us feel that approval 

of this project would strip us of our individual property rights. We 

do not feel that a foreign corporation has any right to take our land 

for their private use and gain, especially when there has been no 

determination that this project is in the national interest. We have 

seen no evidence that this pipeline is anything other than export 

pipeline, providing access to the world oil market for Canadian tar 

sands. Outside of providing a few months of temporary employment 

for some Americans, it yields few other benefits. 

148 

Mr. Terry himself in a speech a week or 2 weeks ago in the State 

of Nebraska said there would be no more than 30 permanent jobs 

as a result—in the State of Nebraska as a result of the pipeline 

project, and we are being asked to risk some of our greatest national resources and a lot of folks’ livelihoods, and we are going to 

get 30 permanent jobs. 

Completion of the pipeline would actually increase the price of 

the oil we are currently importing from Canada. This is an undisputed fact. I mean, really, does this make any sense? We help them 

build the pipeline, and as a result we end up with higher oil and 

fuel prices in the Midwest? You know, why don’t we just take the 

gun out and shoot ourselves in the foot. That would make more 

sense to me. 

Perhaps it is just my Nebraska logic, but from my perspective it 

appears that the United States is getting the short end of the stick 

on this deal. Canada and the big oil companies are reaping all the 

rewards while Americans are being left behind to fix the fences. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

149 


76343.077

My name is Randy Thompson, I'm from Martell, Nebraska. I am here as a Nebraska citizen and 

landowner. I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to be here today. 

I would like to start my testimony today by thanking President Obama for making the right decision by 

denying the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. I am proud to think that the voices of Nebraskans had 

an impact on his decision. Those of us who live and work along the proposed path of this pipeline 

applaud him for placing our welfare ahead of the interests of big oil companies. 

As a lifelong Nebraskan I can honestly tell you that I have never witnessed any project that has stirred 

the emotions of my fellow Nebraskans like the Keystone XL has. Contrary to what you may have heard 

from some of our elected officials, I can assure you that the dust hasn't settled in Nebraska. 

TransCanada has built a mountain of distrust among the ordinary citizens of our state, and even with 

their voluntary agreement to move the pipeline out of the Sandhills we remain very skeptical. Many 

Nebraskans view TransCanada as an overly aggressive company who thought it could bully and 

intimidate its way across our state, and having witnessed TransCanada's actions during the application 

process has made us wary of what they would do if empowered by a premature permit. 

TransCanada has been granted plenty of free passes and now they seek yet another. They want their 

political allies to free them from the tangled mess that they, themselves, helped to create. Perhaps it's 

time for the free passes to come to an end. If the Keystone XL truly has merit then it should be able to 

withstand the rigorous and comprehensive review that it deserves, and has not gotten. 

If this pipeline is built thousands of us in the heartlands will have to live and work next to it for the 

balance of our lives, and in many cases the balance of our kids and grandkids lives. It will cross hundreds 

of our waterways, lakes, and streams, and it will only get riskier with time; so please, don't tell us that 

this permit needs to be hurried through. 

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 would be forced to give up a portion of our hard earned property 

for the personal gain and benefit of corporate entities. We have seen no evidence that this pipeline is 

anything other than an export pipeline providing access to the world oil market for Canadian Tar Sands. 

Outside of providing a few months of temporary employment for some Americans it yields few other 

benefits. Completion of the pipeline would actually increase the price of the oil we are currently 

importing from Canada to our Midwest refineries. This is an undisputed fact. 

Perhaps it's just my Nebraska logic, but from my perspective it appears that the United States is getting 

the short end of the stick on this deal. Canada and the big oil companies are reaping the rewards while 

Americans are being left to fix the fence. 

Thank you for allowing me to be here today. 

Ra ndy Thom pson 
150 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I appreciate your 

opening statement. 

I am going to defer my 5 minutes of questions and at this time 

recognize Mr. Pompeo of Kansas for his 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

I begin by asking unanimous consent to enter into the record an 

article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal February 4, written by Ted Olson. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

151 


76343.078

THE WALL STREET JOllR!W,. 

OPINION 

FEBRUARY 1.2012 

Obama's Enemies List 

David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, 

choreographed from the very top. 

By THEODORE B. OLSON 

How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for 

attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president's re-election campaign as an enemy 

of the people? 

What would you do if the White !louse engaged in derogatory speculative innuendo about the 

integrity of your tax returns? Suppose also that the president's surrogates and allies in the media 

regularly attacked you, sullied your reputation and questioned your integrity. On top of all of 

that, what if a leading member of the president's party in Congress demanded your appearance 

before a congressional committee this week so that you could be interrogated about the Keystone 

XL oil pipeline project in which you have repeatedly-and accurately-stated that you have no 

involvement? 

Consider that all this is happening because you have been selected as an attractive political 

punching bag by the president's re-election tcam. This is precisely what has happened to Charles 

and David Koch, even though they are private citizens. and neither is a candidate for the 

president's or anyone else's office. 

What Messrs. Koch do, in fact, is manage businesses that provide cmployment to more than 

50,000 people in North America in legitimate, productive industries. They also give millions of 

dollars to medical researchers, hospitals and cultural institutions. Their biggest offense, 

apparently, is that they also contribute generously to nonprofit organizations that promote 

personal liberty and free enterprise, and some of those organizations oppose policies advocated 

by the president. 

Richard Nixon maintained an "enemies list" that singled out private citizens for investigation and 

abuse by agencies of government, including the Internal Revenue Service. When that was 

revealed, the press and public were outraged. That conduct will forever remain one orthe 

indelible stains on Nixon's presidency and legacy. 

When Joseph McCarthy engaged in comparable hullying, oppression and slander from his 

powerful position in the Senate, he was censured by his colleagues and died in 

disgrace."McCarthyism," defined by Webster's as the "use of unfair investigative and accusatory 

methods to suppress opposition," will forever be synonymous with un-Americanism. Army 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SBI0001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html?mod=ITP _opinion~ O#print 

Mode 
152 


76343.079

counsel Joseph Welch's "Have you no sense of decency?" are words that evoke the McCarthy era 

and diminish the reputations of his colleagues who did nothing to stand up to him. 

In this country, we regard the use of official power to oppress or intimidate private citizens as a 

despicable abuse of authority and entirely alien to our system of a government of laws. The 

architects of our Constitution meticulously erected a system of separated powers, and checks and 

balances, precisely in order to inhibit the exercise of tyrannical power by governmental officials. 

Our Constitution even explicitly prohibits bills of attainder so that Congress may not single out 

individual citizens or groups for disfavored treatment or unequal application of the force of 

government. Prosecutorial power is rigidly constrained and judicially supervised so that 

government may not accuse private citizens of crimes or investigate them without good cause. 

Whoever may be the victim of such abuse of governmental authority, the press and public almost 

invariably unify with indignation against it. If a journalist, labor-union leader or community 

organizer on the left can be targeted today, an academic or business person on the right can be 

the target tomorrow. If we fail to stand up against oppression from one direction, we abdicate the 

moral authority to challenge it when it comes from another. 

This is why it is exceedingly important for all Americans to respond with outrage to what the 

president and his allies are doing to demonize and stigmatize David and Charles Koch. They 

have been the targets of the multiyear, carefully orchestrated campaign of vituperation and 

assau It described above-and much more. It has been choreographed from the very top. When 

the president personally takes leadership, his political surrogates and army of allies in the press 

and Congress quickly and surely follow the direction and tonc he sets. 

Thc misuse of government power to damage or demean one's political enemies is abhorrent and 

the very antithesis of a free society and a government of laws, not men. It is time for the public to 

ask those engaged in these practices, "Have you no sense of decency?" 

Mr. Olson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C.. and aformer solicitor general of the United States, 

represents Koch Industries. 

http://online.w~.com/a.ticieiSB10001424052970204573704577189520334363222.html"mod=ITP _ opinion_ Oiiprint 

Mode 
153 

Mr. POMPEO. You know, I understand that Mr. Waxman doesn’t 

like this pipeline. He called this hearing. He asked for witnesses 

to come, but the incredible political nature of it became really apparent when he had his chance to ask questions. He had 5 minutes. I watched the clock. He spent 4 minutes and 31 seconds testifying. So he drug two folks out from the United States Government, brought them here this morning ostensibly because he was 

keenly interested. He thought it was absolutely critical that this 

committee hear from them, and he got between two and two and 

a half questions, depending on how you count them. Twenty-nine 

seconds. * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a point of order. 

I know the rules on the House Floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack on Members’ motivations or 

actions. I am happy to answer it when I get my turn, but if I answer it and don’t have enough time for questions to these witnesses, he will say I didn’t ask them enough questions. But I think 

it is inappropriate, and I make a point of order that the words be 

stricken. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Waxman, I—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would the gentleman hold for 1 minute? 

Mr. POMPEO. Certainly. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Unless the gentleman wants to withdraw those 

comments, and then he can go on with his questions. 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, I am happy to withdraw them so that we can 

proceed this morning. That is fine. I am happy to withdraw the 

comments. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Then I withdraw my point of order. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman withdraws—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Appreciate the gentleman—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. At his point. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Withdrawing his personal statements. 

Mr. POMPEO. Certainly. We have now this standard that is apparently being applied by folks across the aisle. The folks across 

the aisle have this we try and decide whether there is a personal 

benefit, whether someone would or would not benefit from a particular stance. This is a private investment. Seven-billion-dollar 

private investment. 

But, you know, I watched. I wasn’t here, but I watched this committee last year as we were debating and discussing—it was a little 

different. We didn’t have hearings like this very often, but I 

watched them on the floor debate Obamacare and the Stimulus 

Package, and there was no discussion from the left about who 

might or might benefit from those takings from the taxpayer, those 

enormous government programs. And I just think it is intellectually desperate, dishonest to now for us to all have this different 

standard. We should have a standard about policy. We ought all to 

do that and not have a standard that—where we say, Hey, we are 

looking to see who benefits or who does not benefit from a particular piece of legislation. 

And with that I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. 

154 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from California for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I get to questions I want to 

point out that since it has been commented that I am being political, the chairman of the subcommittee raised the issue of whether 

the President is in the full campaign mode trying to respond to 

these extremists in the environmental side, attributing his motives 

for that, and so this is all Presidential politics and suggested that 

perhaps we ought to look at Mr. Soros who has a train that could 

take this tar sands oil down to Texas instead of using a pipeline. 

Well, my point was never that—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Warren Buffett, not Mr. Soros. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Excuse me. The other guy that you don’t like, Mr. 

Buffett. Mr. Soros, Mr. Buffett. So I consider that an ad hominem 

political kind of argument. 

But my Republican colleagues and the American Petroleum Institute make several arguments for building this pipeline. They say 

we need the oil, it will lower gas prices, it will make us more secure as a Nation, but the facts just don’t support these claims. 

The Energy Information Agency, which is part of the Department 

of Energy, is projecting that what America, that America’s oil consumption is no longer growing. It is no longer growing, and the reason it is no longer growing is because we have insisted on more efficient automobiles that have better fuel mileage. The standards for 

these model years 2017, through 2025, will further reduce our oil 

dependence. 

So with growth and consumption now in check, I don’t think we 

have to be stampeded into something like this oil tar sands deal 

from Canada. This pipeline will not reduce gas prices. In fact, last 

year TransCanada admitted to this subcommittee that the pipeline 

will raise crude oil prices in the Midwest. There is a debate over 

how much it will raise those prices, but certainly it won’t lower 

them. 

So that leaves the question of national security as a reason why 

we need to go along with this pipeline, and we have General Anderson, could you just briefly state what your experience, your relevant military experience has been? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thirty-one years service in the Army. I am a professional logistician, most recently served in the Pentagon for 2 

years as a chief of logistics operations and readiness in the Pentagon, and before that I was general David Petraeus’s senior logistics officer at the multinational force in Iraq C–4. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In your statement you said that you didn’t think 

this pipeline was in our national security interest. You said that 

America’s oil dependence threatens our national security. Is this a 

controversial view among national security experts? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I don’t think so. Certainly, although I am not 

sure if I would call myself a national security expert, I am an expert in regards to experiencing the operational impacts of our oil 

addiction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I still do work in Afghanistan. I have spent quite a bit of time over there with my private 

interests, and I can tell you that we haven’t changed at all in 10 

years over there. We are still incredibly wasteful and inefficient, 

155 

and we don’t have any of the renewable energy technologies that 

I believe we need to save soldiers’ lives. 

Mr. WAXMAN. This is not oil that is coming out of Canada that 

is going to be put through a pipeline through the United States. 

This is a different kind of oil. It comes from tar sands, and therefore, can have problems in the pipeline. 

The TransCanada has already one pipeline. It has been around 

for I think a year and a half, and they have already had 14 spills 

over the last year and a half. So a lot of people are concerned about 

the safety of the pipeline, but that is a pipeline that is not carrying 

these—this crude oil tar sands if I am—if I understand the situation. It is not going to carry this kind of tar sands, and to get the 

tar sands ready to go through any pipeline there has to be such a 

use of energy to refine it sufficiently to go through the pipeline that 

it is going to cause us more greenhouse gases adding to climate 

change problems. Is that the way you see it? 

Mr. ANDERSON. That is exactly the way I see it, sir, and I think 

that it is very detrimental to this Nation to continue the CO2 emissions that we are doing and will no doubt do with the encouragement of this pipeline because I believe that it ultimately brings 

about climate change and global instability. And when that happens, I think the likelihood that soldiers like myself will have to 

fight and die in order to protect the stability of the world is much 

more likely. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The threat of tar sands oil spills from 

TransCanada’s pipeline is another reason why people oppose it, 

and Mr. Michael Klink, who is an engineer and a safety inspector 

for TransCanada’s first Keystone Pipeline that had those 14 spills, 

wrote an op-ed in the Lincoln Journal Star, which I would like to 

have put into the record, and he describes seeing the first Keystone 

Pipeline constructed with cheap foreign steel that cracked when 

workers tried to weld it. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that article be—— 

[The information follows:] 

156 


76343.080

Mike Klink: Keystone XL pipeline not safe Page lof2 

t 

JoURNAt1STAR 

- }oumaIStar.com---.... •..... -------

Mike Klink: Keystone XL pipeline not safe 

By Mike Klink I Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:50 pm 

There has been a lot of talk about the safety of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. 

I am not an environmentalist. but as a civil engineer and an inspector for TransCanada during the construction of the first 

Keystone pipeline. I've had an uncomfortable front-row seat to the disaster that Keystone XL could bring about aU along its 

pathway. 

Despite its boosters' advertising, this project is not about jobs or energy security. It is about money, And whenever my former 

employer Bechtel, working on behalf ofTransCanada, had to choose between safety and saving money, they chose to save 

money. 

As an inspector, my job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline. I oversaw construction at the pump 

stations that have been such a problem on that line, which has already spilled more than a dozen times. I am coming forward 

because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up. 

When J last raised concerns about comers being cut, 1 lost my job - but people along the Keystone XL pathway have a lot 

more to Jose if this project moves forward with the same shoddy work. 

What did I see? Cheap foreign steel that cracked when workers tried to weld it, foundations for pump stations that you would 

never consider using in your own home, fudged safety tests. Bechtel staffers explaining away leaks during pressure tests as 

"not too bad,H shortcuts on the steel and rebar that are essential for safe pipeline operation and siting of facilities on 

completely inappropriate spots Jike wetlands. 

I shared these concerns with my bosses, who communicated them to the bigwigs at TransCanada, but nothing changed. 

TransCanada didn't appear to care, That is why I was not surprised to hear about the big spill in Ludden, N.D., where a 60-

foot plume of crude spewed tens of thousands of gallons of toxic tar sands oil and fouled neighboring fields. 

TransCanada says that the performance has been OK. Fourteen spills is not so bad. And that the pump stations don't really 

count. That is all bunk. This thing shouldn't be leaking like a sieve in its first year what do you think happens decades 

from now after moving billions of barrels of the most corrosive oil on the planet? 

Lefs be clear I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn't build pipelines. We just should not build this one, 

Pipelines can and do stand the test of time, but TransCanada already has shown that they cannot. After working on 

engineering projects all over the world, I can tell you that a company that cared about safety would not follow these types of 

practices. 

Ifil were a car, the first Keystone would be a lemon. And it would be far worse to double down on a proven loser with 

Keystone XL. 

The stories of how TransCanada has bullied landowners in Nebraska rings true to me. I am living it, as well. After repeatedly 

telling the contractor and TransCanada about my concerns, I lost my job. 

But I couldn't watch silently as a company put innocent people at risk with a haphazardly built pipeline. I am speaking out on 

behalf of my children and your children. 

Oil spills are no joke. We need to do all we can to protect our water and our food, I am glad the Nebraska Legislature stepped 

up to protect Nebraskans. I can only hope that they stand up to TransCanada. We should all take a hard look at the damage 

that this pipeline will do, I should know; I've seen it in person. 

Please do not sell out to foreign oil and foreign suppliers. There is no guarantee the product will stay in the United States, 

only the toxic waste. God bless the United States and those cfus who still believe in the fact that her people matter. 

http://joumalstar . comlnews! opinionJedi tori all co lumnists/mike-klink -keystone-xl-pipeline-n... 2/3/20 J 2 
157 

Mr. WAXMAN. And I also have a letter, this is—in addition to his 

op-ed I also have a letter from Mr. Klink that I would also ask 

unanimous consent to put in the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

158 


76343.081

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

U.S. House of Representatives 

564 Ford House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Telephone (202) 225-3976 

Fax (202) 225·4099 

Dear Representative Waxman, 

Michael Klink 

730 North Main St. 

Auburn, IN 46706 

February l. 2012 

I am writing to you to express my concerns about the TransCanada Pipeline Keystone XL 

project. I met with your staff this fall in Washington DC while I was testifying at the State 

Department as an expert on the engineering and construction issues regarding the building of the 

first Keystone pipeline. I first off want to thank your staff for the sincerity which they 

demonstrated during my visit to your office. 

The past six months have been an exceptionally exciting time for me as I have made multiple 

trips to Washington DC for meetings, done countless newspaper interviews. radio shows and 

recently was on National TV for an interview on MSNBC. My reason for being so vocal about 

the Keystone XL project is from my first hand experience as a safety inspector on the Keystone I 

(One) project. The number of problems, specifically with regard to safety, which I experienced 

as an inspector on Keystone was extremely concerning and the concern stays with me to this 

day. As far as my personal stance, I am not against pipelines, as good could resonate from such 

a project for our economy and jobs, but to build the pipeline with the current lack of construction 

oversight and safety measures is a huge mistake. This pipeline is being built with foreign 

materials which are not up to standards necessary for proper construction; no matter how many 

jobs this will create, the slight percent Ihis project weans off our dependence on foreign oil. the 

impending future damage of the Keystone XL pipeline is daunting for each town and city it 

passes by. These spills will bappen and they will bappen on a magnitude that will result in 

destroyed vegetation such as crops and wetlands, loss of livestock, and has the potential to cause 

the loss of human Ii ves. I have been on the job site and I have seen these issues which I will 

explain later in my leiter. My agenda is nothing more than to voice what I have seen as a safety 

inspector on Keystone I, from the sit down I had with you earlier this fali, I know this will not 

fall on deaf ears. 

As a regular everyday citizen, sitting in Indiana, reading articles and watching the news about 

decisions on the Keystone XL pipeline, it seems like many elected officials are trying to allow 

the Keystone XL project to continue at the expense of the taxpayer opposed to working for the 

taxpayer. A disaster as mentioned before would have irnrneasurable impact not only on the lives 

of those within the reach of the toxic tar sand sludge, but to the rest of the country as well as this 

pipeline runs through the heartland of the US and one of the largest sources of freshwater which 

supplies irrigation for 27% of the irrigated land in the US in addition to providing drinking water 
159 


76343.082

to 82% of the people who live within the aquifer boundary. I have seen this tar sands when it is 

spilled from this pipeline, and I can speak with 100% confidence when I say, there is no way to 

restore these damaged areas once this tar sand has polluted it. Looking simply at the bottom line 

in terms of dollars and cents, as it seems monetary discussion is what catches people ears, it 

would be far more expensive to attempt to clean the spills, compensate those whose land has 

been ruined, explain to each taxpaying citizen why the consumer goods index has skyrocketed 

because we lost 30% of the irrigation water for our farmlands than it would be to postpone the 

pipeline, create and enforces a new stringent set of safety requirements. 

The pipeline must be built and held to such standards that these risks be mitigated. Below are 

areas which I personally witnessed as being substandard and as before, would be willing to 

testify on any of the below points: 

Pipe standards need to different than for oil thickness need to much greater due 

abrasiveness of tar sands and due the pressure at which the tar sands are pumped. 

o Only when one has been on the jobsite can one see that the tar sands are not like 

regular oil. This "oil" has the consistency of peanut butter and is similar to 

sending heavy grit sandpaper down the steel pipe at over 1700 Pounds per Square 

Inch (PSI). 

Welding standards need to be upgraded to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

standards. 

o The Government does not need to reinvent the wheel on this. There are already 

standards in place which must be met in order to build a pipe which is carrying 

hazardous materials. 

The hiring process and certification for welders needs to be overhauled. 

o Current hiring practice allows for the welders to be trained on and make their 

certifying welds on steel with different properties and origin than the steel used on 

the pipeline. By training and certifying on steel or pipes that are different than 

that of the pipeline, welders are creating an inferior finished product. Welders 

should be certified on the exact pipe or steel being used on that phase of the 

pipeline. If the steel or pipe properties change throughout the pipeline, recertification should be required. 

When the pipeline is being buried, it should be done at a greater depth with proper 

compaction of certified backfill material so the pipeline does not shift. 

o Currently, there is no compaction to the soil when the pipeline is being laid. The 

hole is dug, pipe is thrown, welded and the dirt is shoveled over the pipe risking 

damage to the pipe. Ultimately, the pipe should be encased in a concrete tube in 

the underground sections to contain any leaks. The best solution to all of this is to 

make all pipelines above ground. 

There shall be mandated no underwater crossing of any water. 

o All water crossings should be above ground with sleeves to catch any leaks. 

2 
160 


76343.083

Complete containment of all pump stations should be implemented. 

o The pump stations should be housed in concrete building with sealed doors to 

contain all spills. American construction contractors, farmers, and businesses 

have obeyed contairunent laws for chemicals which are not nearly as toxic and 

dangerous. 

TransCanada has maintained the pipeline as being built with a fifty-year life expectancy. 

o A 50 year life expectancy is impossible on this project. Housing electrical 

components and control sensors in modular trailers and old sea containers 

previously used on ships is a recipe for disaster. Subpar practices leave these 

units more susceptible to fire, tornados, or electrical failure. 

Make sure it is built as designed and approved by the United States Government. 

o Many instances of shortcuts and disregard for standards in place by Trans Canada 

have been documented with no repercussions. For example, do not allow Trans 

Canada to substitute parking bumpers found at your local grocery store for 

concrete foundations. 

Do not allow Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

inspectors give a two week notice to Trans Canada as to time and location they will be 

inspecting. 

o This happened while I was on the job. We were informed the PHMSA inspectors 

were arriving in 2 weeks and to make every attempt to ensure standards are 

implemented. The local building inspector of a house does not even supply 

forewarning, why would US Department of Transportation agency do this? 

Ensure there is an EPA certified cleanup plan that works. 

a There is no cleanup method for spills of tar sands. This is very apparent in the tar 

sand oil spill in Battle Creek, Michigan where over 1.5 years later and tens of 

millions of dollars have been spent, the 800,000 gallon spill still plagues 

residents. 

DOT warning signs with placards showing "Hazardous Material" should be placed on the 

pump stations and the pipeline every 100 feet. 

o PHMSA is under the DOT and is the tar sands were being hauled in a truck, these 

placards would be mandatory under their regulations. 

o First responders (firefighters, police, EMT) need to be trained on how to deal with 

this toxic material. Especially as most of the first responders in the small towns 

scattered along the pipeline's path are volunteers. 

Currently there is no safeguard to keep people away from the pipeline. 

o The threat of an attack on the pump stations is very real and would ensure a 

disaster. Currently, even a stray shot fired from a hunting rifle could damage the 

pump stations. 

As mentioned previously, I have made multiple trips to Washington DC to speak with Senators, 

Congressmen and women, reporters, at a State Department hearing, as well as environment 
161 


76343.084

groups, and one thing that continues to resonate with me is that the people making the decisions, 

as well as other parties involved, have yet to set foot on the construction site where Keystone I 

was built or the visited the build site for the Keystone XL pipeline. Not one of these people I 

talked to has been to Marshall, Michigan to observe firsthand the impact a spill of over 840,000 

gallons of tar sands into the Kalamazoo River and witnessed the highly volatile mixture of 

thinning compounds and other toxic chemicals which now coat the river and lake and caused 

evacuation of people from their home which they were never allowed to return to. This spill is 

minimal, in fact exponentially smaller than what will happen on the Keystone Pipeline projects if 

something is not done now to ensure proper construction. 

Do you know that there are more safety standards and requirements put into place by regulatory 

committees to build a sewer line from your house to the main sewer line than there are to 

transport toxic tar sands which are ftlled with poisons like arsenic, mercury, and benzene across 

our country? 

Again, I am not saying that pipelines are bad; I am not saying that an attempt to lessen our 

country's dependence on foreign oil isn't important, but I am however hoping that you can see 

that pipelines need to be built safely. Pipelines can be built using materials made in the us. 

This project, as proposed, should be stopped, investigated, and done correctly from start to 

finish. You not only owe it to yourself, your children, your grandchildren and generations after 

them, but you owe it to your constituents and their families. 

Michael R. Klink 

BS Civil Engineering 

4 
162 

Mr. WAXMAN. My time has expired. I want to thank the two gentlemen, Mr. Thompson and General Anderson, for their testimony. 

I think that we ought to hear another side to this issue, not have 

it ram-roaded through the Congress, not have it given special-interest treatment. This is a big decision. We are going to be living with 

the consequences for maybe 50 to 100 years, and it is in the wrong 

direction that it is going to take our Nation in terms of greenhouse 

gases, in terms of carbon emissions, in terms of pipeline safety, in 

terms of danger to the people around the pipeline, and the taking 

of the property from those people whose property is going to be 

taken for this special interest purpose. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate 

you gentlemen taking your time to be with us today. We may disagree on some of this but do appreciate you all’s American citizen 

success and your rights under our constitution to speak to your 

government and do commend you for being here. 

I do have some issues with some of the comments about jobs, you 

know. We can always argue over the numbers, but one thing that 

I find just really interesting is is that if you accept the argument 

that folks are going to—the oil is going to come in and then the 

oil is going to go to other countries, and this is just a pipeline to 

send the oil somewhere else, if that argument is accepted, you also 

have to accept the argument that before it goes to the other countries, it is going to be refined in the United States, thus adding 

value. To do that you have to add jobs to add that value, and when 

you add that value you add strength in our economy and tax dollars. 

So I recognize the situation you have, Mr. Thompson, being personal and the property rights involved, and I have not personally 

looked at that, but what I do see is a significant situation where 

it has been studied for a long time, and I do believe that there are 

jobs that are created by having the Keystone XL Pipeline, and I 

think a lot of the opposition, not necessarily yours but others, are 

folks who do not feel that we should continue to use carbon-based 

energy. I think that the general falls into that category, and I don’t 

agree with that. 

Coming from a coal ridge and a natural ridge area of the United 

States, I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you that I think that at 

least for the foreseeable future we are going to need to use oil, we 

are going to need to use coal, we are going to need to use natural 

gas. While we should be looking at green energy sources long term, 

I certainly wouldn’t want to put us in a situation where our military had to rely on solar panels in order to provide it with the energy that it needs to move forward. It is certainly something that 

we should look at long term, but I think over the next 20 years we 

are still going to need our carbon-based fuels, and with that, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, 

for 5 minutes. 

163 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

to thank the witnesses. 

And I am going to agree with my colleague that if you are exporting fuels and this is a refined product from obviously what we receive from Canada, exporting is good, balance of trade, creates jobs 

and such. The real question then comes as to how you refine it, and 

I just want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

that we attended to make sure that we did it in a more cleaner 

fashion and more safe fashion, and that they opposed this every 

step of the way. 

Now, we were able to get a bill out of the House, but we have 

never have been able to conclude that. So I am hoping that they 

recognize the necessity of a safe and clean refining industry in this 

country in the way that we can accomplish and meet all of the demands of this country. 

Mr. Anderson, is that right? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Again, thank you for your service, first of all, and 

thank you for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. It is 

good to hear from you. 

I understand what you are saying, and I am going to agree with 

you. This is my fear. I am for the Keystone. I am from Texas, so 

you know that I still believe in fossil fuel. The question is how 

much longer will we still require a reliable source of fossil fuel in 

this country. 

I understand that many of the studies that are published come 

from the oil companies, and they will tell you that we are going to 

have domestic dependence for some years to come and globally 

even for a longer period of time. I hear your fear that my support 

of Keystone may well simply expand the duration of the time that 

we may be still dependent. 

My position is we will be importing because we need it, and I 

would rather get it from Canada and Mexico than anyone else for 

national security purpose, but that does not mean that we should 

not continue to aggressively view efficiency and conservation, renewables and alternatives. 

So I agree with you there has to be a healthy balance to be able 

to accomplish this. To my colleagues on the other side of the fence, 

the problem is that you truly just have almost 100 percent dedication to fossil fuels. As much as I understand that they have to be 

part of the fix, I am going to give you a quote from John Quigley, 

former Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, in making reference to how we explore today 

for fossil fuels and such. 

He says, ‘‘We are burning the furniture to heat the house.’’ And 

that is the caution. That is the cautionary tale to all of us. Be realistic about our needs in the future, how we wean ourselves from 

the dependency on fossil fuel. Everyone is going to tell you that exploration, production, and refining of fossil fuels is a twilight industry, but I am here to tell you that it is a real long twilight, and 

we can’t afford to be caught without an adequate supply and be depending on individuals, countries that we will be in jeopardy and 

in a flux for years to come. 

164 

So I do agree with you, and I thank you again for your observation. 

Mr. Thompson, I do have a question about you. We hear a lot of 

complaining about regulation and such in this country, about its 

owners, its overburdened. The greatest exercise of governmental 

regulation is eminent domain, and you have made reference to 

that. So I want to know have you been approached by TransCanada to negotiate anything regarding some possible use of your 

property? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Can you tell me about that experience? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. We were first notified verbally that they intended to use eminent domain if we didn’t go along with the offer 

that they had presented us for the use of our property. We definitely declined to do—enter into any kind of agreement with them. 

So they followed up with a written letter expressly stating that if 

we did not accept the terms of the agreement that they had sent 

to us, that they—if we did not accept those terms within 30 days, 

that they would then immediately proceed to take our land through 

eminent domain. 

And my problem with that, sir, they were still in the permitting 

process at this time, and yet they are threatening me with eminent 

domain, and they did this throughout the State of Nebraska. And 

I will guarantee you, sir, that many, many of the easements that 

landowners signed was due to the fact that TransCanada told 

them, threatened them with eminent domain. And there are not too 

many ranchers or any other ordinary citizens that are willing to 

take on a multibillion-dollar corporation, as we well know. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, keep us posted, Mr. Thompson. I would ask 

you that. 

My time is up. 

Mr. THOMPSON. OK. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I hate cutting you off, but I thank you, and 

thank you, General. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am going to continue to defer all my questions, 

and I will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. 

First of all, General Anderson, I appreciate your concerns about, 

you know, the global environmental issues. Your concern about this 

pipeline and its short-term and long-term impact I think is very, 

you know, what we want to talk about. 

Do you feel that the construction of the Alaskan Pipeline in the 

’70s was detrimental to the national security? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I think at that time that was the right thing to 

do. It was a different, much different situation, of course. Now the 

world has changed, and greenhouse gases and climate change and 

world instability are all these things that are much more in the 

forefront than they were 40, 50 years ago when we contemplated 

the Alaskan Pipeline. 

Mr. BILBRAY. General, do you think that the, you know, the 

physics of environmental reality and the reality of the political instability of places like the Middle East have changed dramatically 

since we—the Congress voted on that pipeline? 

165 

Mr. ANDERSON. I am not sure if I understand what you are—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. I am just saying, I am saying again do you believe 

that the physics of environmental impact, issues like climate 

change, issues like emissions, toxic emissions and everything else, 

and the situations that have historically been unstable in the Middle East, do you think that there wasn’t, those issues weren’t at 

least if not perceived weren’t reality at that time also? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No. I don’t think that they were as developed as 

they are today, as apparent as they are today. I don’t think we 

knew back then the impact of CO2 emissions. 

Mr. BILBRAY. We didn’t know. That is my point. We might not 

have known, but the fact is that it was still there. Wouldn’t you 

agree? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would concede you that point. Yes. 

Mr. BILBRAY. What—do you believe the use and or the development and expansion of the use of nuclear power is a—contributing 

to the national security, or do you think that it is a detriment to 

the national security? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I consider nuclear power to be clean energy, and 

I support its development. 

Mr. BILBRAY. And I appreciate you using that because one of the 

frustrations I have as somebody who has worked in clean air is 

people mix the word renewable as if it is all clean and deny clean 

energies across the line, and as you know the number one purchaser of nuclear reactors in this country is the United States Government, and I appreciate that. 

Do you believe that the mandated use of ethanol aids in the security of this country and its long-term environmental and economic 

and military stability? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Not really. No, I don’t really believe that. 

Mr. BILBRAY. In other words, you go along with those of us that 

have addressed in the issue in California that ethanol is not only 

a very expensive, non-sustainable option, but it is also a fluting option with evaporative emissions and related issues that was not 

clarified when the mandate occurred here in Washington. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would agree with that. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Even though those of us in California tried to warn 

Washington of this environmental and economic impact. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would agree with that. Of course, I am not an 

expert in this field. I am talking about national security. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I understand that, but we are getting back to this 

issue of how energy policy affects it. 

Would you agree that giving ethanol all of the benefits or the 

overwhelming majority of benefits like tax credits, blender fuels, 

and everything else while denying other environmental options 

such as algaes, the same packet, is counterproductive to the stated 

purpose of a national energy independence? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would agree with that. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I want to thank you very much for your testimony, and I appreciate that we approach the challenges. 

I would ask that the record show the general very clear about 

the fact that what some people perceived as being environmental 

damaging in Washington may not be perceived by the general or 

166 

myself of being not only damaging but maybe absolutely essential 

for environmental and national security purposes. 

And I appreciate it, General, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Markey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Keystone Pipeline would carry some of the 

dirtiest oil in the world right through the middle of our country. 

It is a double-barrel threat to the environment, pumping out millions of tons of the pollutants that cause global warming, also risking oil spills into our ground water. 

We have been repeatedly told that approving this pipeline would 

lower gas prices at the pump, even though TransCanada projects 

that oil prices and its profits would rise because they can charge 

more for Keystone oil in the Gulf than it does in the Midwest. 

We have also been repeatedly told to get over our concerns because the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly Middle Eastern nations, but it turns out that these energy benefits may be a 

complete fiction. Many of the refineries where the Keystone crude 

will be sent say they will re-export the refined fuels. They are also 

located in Port Arthur, Texas, which is a designated foreign trade 

zone. This means that when these refineries re-export the Keystone 

oil fuels, they won’t even have to pay U.S. taxes on those exports. 

And in December when I asked the president of TransCanada 

whether he would agree to ensure that the oil and refined fuels 

stay here in the United States instead of being re-exported, he 

said, no. 

Mr. Anderson, last month Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen 

Harper, said that, ‘‘When you look at the Iranians threatening to 

block the Straights of Hormuz, I think that just illustrates how 

critical it is that supply for the United States be North American.’’ 

Mr., do you think that this bill to legislate a permit for the Keystone Pipeline is guaranteed to reduce our dependence on oil transported through the Straights of Hormuz if we don’t have some provision which ensures that the oil stays here in the United States? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No. I do not believe that it will guarantee energy 

security at all for our Nation. 

Mr. MARKEY. The American Petroleum Institute has cited our 

friendly relationship with Canada and polls that find that Americans would prefer to import more oil from Canada. Under this bill 

are there any guarantees that all of the friendly Canadian oil that 

is sent through the pipeline will be sold here in the United States? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No. I am not aware of any guarantees that that 

will happen. 

Mr. MARKEY. So what I am hearing you saying then is that there 

is a threat because they are extracting the oil from tar, that there 

is a greater likelihood of a dangerous warming on the planet and 

that the benefits as the pipeline goes through our country are not 

certain in terms of the oil staying here in our country to break our 

dependence upon imported oil. 

And so what is the benefit to the American people out of such 

a proposal? 

167 

Mr. ANDERSON. There is no benefit. I believe it is a detriment to 

the American people. 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, summarize why is it a detriment? 

Mr. ANDERSON. The detriment because it keeps our addiction to 

oil, and our addiction to oil makes us strategically and operationally vulnerable. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Mr. Thompson, the route that TransCanada 

originally proposed would have gone through Nebraska’s Sandhills. 

Even if a new proposed route would avoid the Sandhills, won’t it 

still go through the Ogallala Aquifer? 

Mr. THOMPSON. We—well, we don’t know where they are proposing a new route, so that is a problem. From that I have heard 

and what initial proposals they were talking about it would still 

cross the Ogallala Aquifer even though—— 

Mr. MARKEY. What is the risk if that happens if there is a spill? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely there is a risk if that happens. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what would happen to the water table? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, if I could quickly explain that our water 

table is so high that the pipeline would actually be buried or submerged directly in the water in many places. 

Mr. MARKEY. Wow. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And so if any type of leak, it is going to go into 

our water supply. 

Mr. MARKEY. Wow and what would the impact of that be? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it could be from small to tremendous. I 

mean, you got all kinds of small communities and like myself, I 

have livestock watering wells, I have irrigation wells that would be 

close to the pipeline. They become contaminated, that property has 

become virtually useless. 

Mr. MARKEY. And how do you feel about that in terms of the impact it could have upon your life and the lives of all the people in 

those smaller communities? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, you know, to put it bluntly, I am angry as 

hell when people want to play political football games with my livelihood. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, we agree with you. We want Nebraska, the 

University of Nebraska to have a good football team, but we don’t 

want oil pumping at the football games. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You are absolutely correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. With the people in Nebraska and we can see how 

their public health could really be in jeopardy. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I just think, you know, somewhere in this process we need to take a look at the people of America that actually 

are going to be, you know, impacted by this thing. It is not all 

about money and this and that. I mean, there is people’s livelihoods 

at stake here, and I mean thousands of us and our resources. So 

that needs to enter the debate somewhere in the process. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, sir, for being here. Thank you, General, 

for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

And the first thing I want to do is read from a memorandum 

from Carmine Defiglio, who is a Ph.D. deputy assistant secretary 

168 

for policy analysis at the U.S. Department of Energy, and in this 

memo he specifically talks about the issue that Mr. Markey raised 

and that is this oil coming from Canada is going to be ending up 

exported out of the U.S. And I am going to read this verbatim. 

He said, ‘‘This memorandum provides data and analysis about a 

number of issues. It concludes that refiners in the U.S. will likely 

consume additional Canadian oil sands well in excess of what 

would be provided by the Keystone XL Pipeline. It also concludes 

that exports of Canadian oil sands from Port Arthur are highly unlikely.’’ 

Now, when you hear this argument that as the President stated 

in his decision not to make a decision, he said that one of the reasons he was not going to make a decision was that he did not have 

sufficient information to make a decision, that Congress did not 

give him enough time. Well, as I had stated in my opening statement, this pipeline has now been under study for 40 months. 

In the fall of 2011, a supplemental draft environmental impact 

statement was issued by the State Department. After months of 

public hearings along the proposed route, the State Department 

issued its final environmental impact statement, and in that final 

environmental impact statement between two options, one of not 

building the pipeline versus, two, building the pipeline, they indicated that the preferred option was to build the pipeline as proposed. 

Now, a person just on the outside not paying any attention to 

this—everyone expected the State Department was going to make 

its final decision some time in the fall of 2011, and then all of sudden now it is they said that they would seek a new route through 

the State of Nebraska and undergo another round of studies that 

would not be complete until the first quarter of 2013. And that was 

the stated reason for President Obama not making a decision, was 

that—because of this new route through Nebraska. 

Now, when some of the political leaders in Nebraska realized 

their concerns were being used by the President to stop this 

project, they had a special session of the legislature was called, and 

a new law was passed to give the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality the ability to cite and evaluate a new route for 

the pipeline within Nebraska’s borders in half the timeframe that 

the State Department envisioned. 

So taking that development into account, the Keystone provision 

that was put into the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Extension Act allowed the President to approve the pipeline while the State of Nebraska completed its environmental review. The final environmental impact statement that the State Department issued in August of 2011 was deemed satisfactory of all National Environmental Policy Act requirements, and no additional Federal review 

should be required. 

Because the route modification of this long pipeline is, in Nebraska is not an interstate modification, there really was no Federal role, and since the rest of the pipeline route outside of Nebraska and its evaluated environmental impact remained unchanged, there was really no reason for the White House or State 

Department to believe that there is not enough time to make the 

decision of the pipeline by February 21. 

169 

I simply wanted to talk about that because when people hear, oh, 

well, the route has changed and that is why we don’t have enough 

time, but there was a clear explanation of all of this, and I think 

I clearly stated it. 

In concluding I would just say that, General Anderson, we genuinely appreciate you being here. I would also like to thank you for 

your support and service to our country, and Mr. Thompson, we appreciate your being here and speaking up on your personal views 

about this issue, and Nebraska is in the Big Ten now. Right? Or 

Big 12. Right? OK. So we know they will continue to do well, and 

we will keep the record open for 10 days for any additional material that might want to be submitted, and with that we will conclude the hearing, and thank you all very much for your assistance 

and helping us out. 

With that, the hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ