>> but the fact that it is tar sand oil, with a change of the pipeline operates? >> no. >> is that an issue when it comes to pipeline safety long? >> well, i think embedded in some of the 57 conditions was consideration with the nature of the crude oil from the oil sands, but nothing particularly significant. >> thank you. >> will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds? >> eight, seven, short. >> does the state of nebraska agreed to eminent domain for this pipeline? >> i think that there is eminent domain authority within the state of nebraska for a pipeline. >> and my time has expired. >> well, this company is telling landowners that they can go into eminent domain. do you know whether the state of nebraska has given them that authority to make that claim? >> whether -- i think that it's a process -- >> no, no.

do you know whether the state -- >> may i answer the question? instead of our council? >> this is a legal question. if she doesn't have an answer than i would be happy to answer to you. >> mr. chairman, my time has expired. i would seek unanimous consent to let mr. terry respond, at least an attorney from nebraska. [laughter] >> i object to the judgments time is expected other members who wish -- >> mr. chairman? >> mr. gonzález from texas. >> let me ask counsel a question. doesn't the concept of eminent domain contemplate a taking, and appropriation? >> yes. >> that's a whole basis of eminent domain in that there is a governmental purpose or interest that trumps the private property rights of the citizen. >> there's a balance of compensation, but that's -- >> we can get into compensation

forever on that. but it's still a taking. so if you have a pipeline deep in the ground, it is still considered a taking, right, of a private property owners land? i just want to make sure that we know what we are dealing with. secondly, doesn't the power of eminent domain belong to a governmental entity, but it can be assigned to the private sector, is that what mr. waxman's question goes to? and that is, has nebraska closed transcanada, or whatever particular entity, with the authority that the state, that the sovereign would have? >> the state's authority for eminent domain would be given to by the constituents of the state, and then it would be the state who then delegate it or give it as appropriate that a story that it has. >> but it would be making a determination on whether to

appropriate someone's property, whether it is deep in ground or above the ground? it would still be a private enterprise, would it not? >> i actually think him and i'm not well-versed on the specifics of nebraska law but i think it goes through a process, that if there was a particular area or a right-of-way, that the pipeline operator was looking to exercise authorities related to eminent domain, that there is a process involved with it. >> do you know in that process has been completed in nebraska in order for transcanada to be making those representations to mr. thompson, the property owner? and i will yield to my colleague, mr. terry, because he may know the answer to it is in state statute. the process is already spilled out in the state statute. so whoever follows -- >> reclaiming my time. i know that it is spelled out just like in texas. hasn't been exercised and hasn't been granted? >> well, it doesn't need to be granted because it already

exists in state law. whether they use that or not i haven't heard of an instance in nebraska where they've gone to court to use it. they been able to negotiate been it okay. reclaiming my time. mr. garrett, does that mean that at this point in time to transcanada has the opportunity to go to the process, has not gone through the process but is making the representation to mr. thompson the property owner that they will in essence appropriate his property, even though it is below ground level? >> you know, i'm not going to put myself in the minds of transcanada. all i know is that there is a process spelled out in statute which they could. now, mr. thompson's property is going to be, is now irrelevant in this process because there's been an agreement with the state of nebraska to move that pipeline. so that route through his

family's property is going to be rerouted. this is why this statute is important, and the memoranda of understanding so they can actually pick a new site and start negotiating with those land owners. >> and reclaiming my time, look, i support the pipeline but i just want it done properly. i don't want to circumvent what we have, with the proper agencies come with the expertise. and i surely don't want to circumvent what we have always been established this post in this country when it comes to anything that crosses our borders from other can, whether the mexico or canada. that's all i'm asking. but i think we were dealing with these legal concept when you to be very, very honest about what we are doing and who we are empowering in making sure that it is orderly and fair and just to the property owner. we are having reports right now of some heavy handedness. i don't know if that's true or

not, but let's set the stage for these negotiations as the pipeline goes forward. i'm happy to yield to any of my democratic colleagues. >> would the gentleman yield? i think this goes to the heart of the matter. mr. terry, in mr. terry's answers to questions from the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzález, he indicated, mr. thompson property is not even under consideration anymore. well, the fact is that there is not a route that exists, all right? and so, here we are giving approval to allow keystone xl pipeline to be constructed without nebraska doing its basic due diligence and hitting is a route.

so this question will be dashed immediately after nebraska decides the route that it wants the pipeline to come. so that's the essence of our problem here. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. bartlett. >> mr. chairman, i just want to give congressman kerry the opportunity to respond, if he wishes to. >> i'm sorry, i was being briefed. >> i just wanted to be the opportune to respond to the park question. >> sure. and thanks to due diligence, the great staff year, the specific statute in nebraska, 57, one-to-one, and it does state specifically petroleum pipelines. it is stated in the statute, and so there is a specific process

that is spelled out, as i mentioned, through state statute. and those things, those things are important. 2.0 want to make to mr. rush's points. one is, the reason why it is this kind of catchall is that if you have one land owner that, you know, has aligned themselves with the nrdc and you have one land owner that can stop a 1700-mile pipeline and i think that's what the basis of this amendment is, but also what it does is it usurps nebraska law. it makes nebraska law that has been vetted, has been adopted by its state legislature, that the people are behind and saying that we're going to make this want a relevant or not applicable here. and that's what this really does here. and so the other part of this is

they are duly compensated. there is due process of law in this process. they have to be compensated at market prices. so all of the rights are done here. i just want to come back and say that this is, what you're doing is saying that we're going to block state law. we are going to nullify state law. and i just don't see why we want to go here and block state laws in the way that they have chosen to deal with these countries. so i will yield back to my friend. thank you. i would like to yield to the subcommittee chairman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. barton. eminent domain is always a contingent issue. and the way these questions are being asked on the other side, it leaves the impression that transcanada is getting some special privileges. is there anything in the terri legislation that would give

transcanada some special privilege related to eminent domain that any of the pipeline in the country or any company willing to build another pipeline would not receive? is there any special privileges given to transcanada under this legislation? >> not related pick being treated just like any other pipeline company that wants to do this come is that correct? >> that's correct. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i want to yield to the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you for giving. and being a non-attorney member, i need to ask some legal questions. it does seem to me that the amendment from the gentlemen from chicago, mr. rush, would essentially, if it were successful, changed nebraska law regarding eminent domain. i will ask counsel her opinion on that. >> that is correct. currently under federal law there is no eminent domain for oil pipelines.

what this would do is, as it applies to the state, or to any state, it would change their law. it would change their lot if they had eminent domain authority. >> right. let me ask counsel one of the question because this is been brought up a number of times in regard to eminent domain and this issue taking, eminent domain for public purposes in the usual way of thinking of that is to build a school over transportation corridor for the regular public use. key versus new london was an expansion of an assertive was opposed to the supreme court decision. but in this situation, and this is my question of council. this taking under eminent domain, and i think mr. terry just addressed it briefly, fair market value that is anybody's determination, transcontinental

office for what they consider fair market value for the taking and the power of eminent domain granted to them by the state of nebraska. if the property on it is not satisfied with fair market value, my question to counsel, they do have recourse in the superior court system in the state of nebraska and, of course, there appellate court system all the way to the supreme court in regard to the true market value if they are opposed to the taking of that property by in it to is that not to? >> that is correct. >> thank you and i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i am happy to yield to mr. rush, my last 13 seconds. >> would this hole the amendment in the essence of one you might call special privileges, isn't this a special privilege for one corporation to do whatever it wants to do, isn't it a special

privilege -- [inaudible] within 30 days make a decision, and if they don't make a decision, then this matter would automatically be approved? isn't that the essence and the essential quality of a special parliament? the whole thing here i might add is about the special privilege of one company, keystone, transcanada. special privileges of transcanada. if this is not about a sole corporation special privilege, in spite of the fears of american citizens, and i don't know what a special privilege is. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. and it's only two kind of point

out that back in 2005, the supreme court brought down a case called kelo v. new londo london, and in that case the supreme court upheld the local governments use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. now, the majorities response was quick and furious. they publicly condemned the decision as a brought a resolution to the floor expressing the grave disapproval of the house of representatives regarding the supreme court case. and every republican on this committee who was in congress and supported that resolution. so it's interesting to see that while the republicans believe that this was a critically important federal issue in 2005, that today they seem happy to allow a foreign corporation to

exercise eminent domain. so just want to make it very clear that it is being noted on our side how this has changed, as the circumstances have changed. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. >> i'm glad to see my friend from massachusetts concerned about private property rights. if the staff would put up a slide on the screen. let's put this all in perspective. is going to come up. come on. staff, don't let me down. say hi, mom. >> okay, those are the pipelines in the united states currently. candidate to the united states you have a pipeline from edmonton to puget sound, edmonton to guernsey, edmonton

to detroit, montréal to chicago, regina to guernsey, calgary to barstow, westbrook, québec to new jersey. toronto to boston, toronto to new york. winnipeg to omaha. winnipeg to detroit to edmonton to windsor. now we have to pipelines that are flowing from the united states to canada. portland to montréal. that's long distance. portland, another one from portland to montréal. from mexico to the united states, to el paso. folks, this is instead we haven't done before. there is a system by which we approve pipeline, and especially the ones -- my point is this is not new.

and we do it for the public interest and the public good to make sure that we have a free flow of oil and refined products. environmentally safe. can you imagine if all that product was moving by truck or by train? this is such a ridiculous debate, that i, it's just furious that we don't understand how much product flows by pipeline to date. antienvironmental benefits of that, but here we are demagogy one pipeline to make us more energy secure, and i think my friend from texas, mr. green, would like some time. >> taking advantage of your map, i want to show members why i am concerned about the legislation. at this and them is a bad amendment to a bad bill. if you look at the central part of the united states where texas is out, so many of the pipelines, we have existing call already on the national basis. we have ferc that regulates natural gas -- natural gas pipe

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

the gentleman from california yield? >> i appreciate that. one of the things which remember, we're setting a precedent here. this is the president that will not only apply to oil lines but we'll set the president this is what we will do with the easements with transmission. as my colleague from massachusetts who has been brave outstanding effort when generation, the greatest barrier for renewables is the creation of transmission lines down the line. start setting a precedent that you're now going to not only not expedite the process, you will slow down the process of being able to make a linkage between where the energy can be created and where it can be considered your when generation is essential when belt and i'm so we don't have one now. we have the greatest potential for when generation and we, where the demand is. you go down the line, there are people who will not be able because they will know this government did not backup the ability to transmit a clean energy over to where it needs to

be done. so careful where you go with this. you -- you don't think they care about the environment. but what happens with our strategy here in the united states when we set a precedent that the use of eminent domain will not be allowed for natural gas transmission or for clean energy. and remember, clean energy has a transmission problem usually two or three times longer than traditional energy. this will be a big issue. we should be working together with, not setting this president in reclaiming my time to define the map was, this was for crude oil, natural gas, and products as refined product after it goes from the refinery. so i just want to put that on the record. yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman eric in looking at the amendment and the nature of the substitute, the second page toward the end it says, while a route modification is under

consideration in nebraska, permit applicant may begin pipeline construction in all state other than nebraska. now, given this, how does it come to be that the company is issuing letters of eminent domain to people if there is not even a route in nebraska? >> is that a question for council? i think the provision is looking at areas outside of nebraska cut out for much of the route is already secured by the pipeline company. >> but let's go back to maybe to the heart of my question, which comes first, letters of eminent domain for a route for the pipeline so that people know where it's going to go and that they can then, you know, move along accordingly? >> the route is defined both in transcanada's application and the final if i'm an impact statement. so the route, except for a

segment of the nebraska route, is defined. and so this provision -- >> but it isn't all defined, greg? >> a small segment within nebraska is not defined but the rest of the pipeline is it whether it is large, small or all the, you are saying it is small, there is still letters of eminent domain being issued to landowners, according to the testimony that was given. i wasn't here for testimony but i did listen to my think i need to get a life. i listen to the hearing on tv. i was captivated by the witness and what they have to say. >> would the gentlelady yield and i can provide -- >> i would be glad to. >> thank you. the land owner that testified was for the old route in nebraska, and the council is correct. with their application you've already worked with the agency, you know where the route is and they go and negotiate. but our governor as transcanada

moved off the sand hills. so that letter and the testimony is on the old route. that's what is causing the confusion here. there is no new route because the permit has been denied and nobody knows if they're supposed to move forward and determine a new route. that's why we have written in here the specifics about entering into a memorandum of understanding and carving out specifically nebraska from this so that they can proceed to determine a route, at which been the pipeline company will sit down and negotiate, and then use nebraska law, if necessary to. >> reclaiming my time. i appreciate that. windows nebraska come up with its route? >> well, when the president denied the permit for this pipeline, according to the governor's office, they were within a week to 10 days of announcing a new site. they have not announced the site because they don't know if they're moving forward or not.

so it could be anytime, but they need to know which agency they work with, under the past application the state department said they were going to work with the state of nebraska. and then when nebraska sent them a memorandum of understanding, they refused to recognize it. >> all right, thank you. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. i believe all time is expiring for the date on this in them, therefore the vote will occur on the amended to all those in favor will say i go. >> i go to all of those will say no. the opinion of the chair, the no has a. the amendment is not agree to. mr. waxman and i have been conferring and we've come to an agreement that we will continue in our absences, we both go to the conference on the tax extenders bill. however, we have also concurred

that we will not have recorded votes before we come back, which will be somewhere between, somewhere probably in the neighborhood about 12:15, if, in fact, we finished at and. so, at this point i will recognize the gentleman from massachusetts to call up his amendment, mr. markey it i have been in. >> amendment to h.r. 3548 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. the staff will circulate the amendment to. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. the keystone pipeline would carry some of the world's dirtiest oil right through the middle of our country. whether it is the carbon pollution that spews into the skies over the oil spill's that could sal our drinking water,

there is no dispute that the environmental consequences attached to transcanada pipeline will be grave. but we've been told repeatedly that it is worth it. we been told the pipeline will lower gas prices, even the transcanada projects -- the transcanada project would rise because it can charge more for keystone oil in the gulf than it does in the midwest. we have been told that the pipeline will create tens of thousands of new jobs, even though it turns out the number of jobs has been grossly inflated. and only about five or 6000 temporary construction jobs will be created. in a particularly a courageous play an american patriotism, and american fears, we have also been told that the oil coming from this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly middle eastern or latin american nations.

last month, canadian prime minister stephen harper even said that quote, when you look at the iranians threatening to block the strait of hormuz, i think that this just illustrates how critical it is that supply to united states be north america. well, this appears to be a complete fiction, because under this bill there are no guarantees that even a drop of the tar sands oil and fuel will stay in this country. this is because many of the refineries where the keystone crude will be sent plan to reexport the refined fuel. for example, bolero states in investor presentation that it plans to refine the canadian crude at the same facility it is building in port arthur, because doing so beverages it's quote export logistics. and says that growing global diesel demand isn't export

opportunity for u.s. refineries. motive, a joint refining venture between shell and the saudi arabian oil company is another one of transcanada's port arthur, texas, customers. the rest of transcanada's customers include a french company, to canadian companies, and the multinational venture based in the netherlands. and it is not just a record a moneymaking export opportunity that many of these companies are seeking. port arthur, texas, is a foreign trade zone. so when these refineries we export the diesel and other fuels, they are making the keystone oil. they won't even have to pay united states taxes. hear that again. they will have to pay united states taxes. lest anyone think that chance america -- transcanada rather,

is in the reexport visit to india similar as the president of transcanada whether he would agree to ensure that the oil refined fuel stay here in this country, instead of re- exporting them, he said no, sitting right at that table. .. under this bill is just a fantasy. make no mistake this is not

about energy security. not about jobs. it is a welcome any profit plain and simple. this bill just turns the united states into a middle man and a multinational oil till between canada, south america, europe and china. republicans look at last year was drill now, payless. now with that canada drilled there, she appear and reexport her. also, so in the united states will have to pay more both in terms of money at the gas constant cost environment. my amendment ensures that if this pipeline is legislated on the oil and any fuel made using a will stay here to benefit american here who will pay last year. i love the president to waive this requirement only if it can be shown the next part of the

wireless yields on increased our dependence on oil or fuel that we buy from other nations. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. finland from illinois. thank you, mr. chair. i like my not better than mr. markey's map. just because it shows all the pipelines that we have currently in this country. i also said this numerous times in this committee, that the keystone pipeline is right outside manchester. my refinery, conoco phillips refinery did a 2 billion-dollar expansion during the lowest economic times. why? so they could ship it down south and put it on ships? know, to refine it. better return on investment for refining a product and selling a product be a tedious as the bulk commodity product as it is. let's take my friends debates or what have eyes.

so what is the crude oil goes on the market. so what you don't understand supply and demand? don't understand commodity products? the more supply of a commodity product on the market, both the lower-priced demand stays stays the same. it's very simple. my friend's map had why would we ship crude oil down to the gold coast and then shifted to china? where is hartford today? it is in china. why? because he's trying to cut the deal to move the pipeline last verse is so. wouldn't that be a better plan for the chinese? you know they are great environmental records of the chinese and we know the great record is moving crude oil across the sea. i would still save a pipe line is the most secure, and is

proven by the hundreds of thousands of miles we shift by type lines every day, whether it's crude oil, whether it's natural gas, whether it is refined products. i shall want you to visit a refinery. look at tanker trucks rolling in there. there is none because it's all coming in by pipeline and not going out by pipeline. again, i would also encourage people to look at the bloomberg article from february 6. america is gaining energy independence, which is what we talk about in this committee of the time. wouldn't it be great to get to energy independence? part of this whole article talks about mentioning step of oil output and restrained conception with the demand for imports, cutting the nation trade deficit and thatcher send a dollar.

it's not a good thing? i would say it is a good thing. and that is from cement he who is currently enemy economist in washington. another point raised in this article is the keystone xl pipeline is going to help us in our crude oil products from the blackened field for north dakota. instead of turkey neck, we can exploit the field for north dakota using the keystone xl type one. north dakota come the center of the pipe oil transformation is not the fourth-largest oil-producing state behind texas, alaska and california even. california is a big oil-producing state. while u.s. consumers would still be susceptible to surges in global oil prices, you would end up sending some of that cash to north dakota rather than saudi

arabia with richard umansky and i think that's what this issue is all about. saddam he confused about the debate of the world oil commodity product. if you accept my friends per night, more supply for commodity product, demand stays the same, prices lower picture for crude oil, corn, beans, true for pork. that is true for any commodity product do you increase the supply and prices go down. all going on in the world market is good thing. i would argue that the better thing is for our refinery to take the crude oil and refine it into the various products, chatfield comes easily fuel,

gasoline, asphalt, all the things that break the crude oil down into that is better for a country at lower prices. so please reject my colleagues amendments and i yield back my time. >> gentleman time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to yield my time to mr. markey. >> i think the gentlelady very much. >> so here's the problem. the gentleman from illinois is saying that we should just get over it. but this oil pipe line will come down from alberta, go right through the middle of our country and just then go once the rest of the world and not with the great. we should be very happy for that

in american consumers will benefit even though the expert strategy of the p2 sending oil to china or argentina or to europe. somehow our consumers will be benefited by that because that is the law of supply and demand. the problem is and where kind of late in the game on this to reach this point of realization is that we play under opec's is supply and demand in their lower and here's what they say to. keep able we demand. anytime the price is going to look, we meet in vienna and have another new meeting. below the price than the total supply of oil and pump it at a net price to just go higher higher. so this story now across the

country are staying at a day the price of gasoline could be $4, $5 across the country. so here is a great opportunity for us. the prime minister of china, prime minister of canada saying on the one hand, that this would be great that our oil is the north american oil, but the other hand when we ask transcanada, will you agree that the oil stays in the united states commit the say no, no, no, no and then you've read all the the things they say and it's clear we're going to be a conduit coming right through the middle of north america to just pump that oil out into the rest of the world. what is the problem with that? the problem is we don't control the price of oil is such a small amount of oil. but it's a million or 2 million barrels a day going

out in the global market. before the united states, it would be a lot of additional oil for market. and why is that important? has a big factor for you. last year for the first time in 62 years, the united state was a net exporter of oil products. you understand that? in 2011 or a net exporter. to monitor a second issue? >> with the gentleman yield? did not put me finish. our number one export last year was oil products. i admit it's infuriating ordinary people policy export of export of oil increase be not what the bill proctor trigger you hurry it the american

trevor. in fact, america has not exported 100 million barrels of oil over the last segment this week this takes a conduit to make it possible to export what will it price of gasoline has skyrocketed in our country. whatever you do, which is play about the streets. let's just make it clear that without eying amendment at this pipeline won't do a single thing to break our dependence on imported oil from the middle east because you are not giving us this. see and canada won't give us this guarantee. so prime minister harper, here's the strategy. they'll fly to china to talk to china about which we like our oil or they will come to the united states and say, could you

build a pipeline to the united states that we can send the oil to china and south america? is going to china, going to south america, going to europe under any circumstances unless you pass my mma to keep it here. that is the canadian plan, don't you understand? if i came from louisiana or texas, i go -- if you come from louisiana or texas, i'm telling you this right now, but against the markey amendment. texas, oklahoma and louisiana vote no. but if you or any other part of the united states, added virtue thinking. it is going to other countries in the world. >> gentleman's time has expired. before i recognize mr. scully said going to take the chair's prerogative and ask my friends a question. we all know you're an entrepreneur as young men selling ice cream at red sox fenway park here it is not correct quite

>> that's true. stanek did you only sell ice cream to the people who said i will eat up front if you right now. or did she let them do whatever they wanted. >> did you haven't either my presence requirement to buy your ice cream? >> i had it used in the united states rule. >> you had to eat it within red sox nation. >> did you think you do yankee fans mr. chairman? >> that's true if you had restrictions on who resold it to. >> let me say this. there was no world ice cream cartel. i was afraid of some of the other competitors, but their rate air. they were americans and i had to keep my prices so far is going to unloads my chocolate. >> i'm going to recognize what are my friends that she pointed out, mr. scully's.

>> i thank my colleague from texas for yielding. i hope my colleague from new england is not blaming the entire oil industry because the super bowl was played at lucas stadium on sunday. i think there is a confusion being presented for oil and refined oil and that gets to the heart of the flaw of this amendment because if you read this amendment by my colleague from massachusetts, you could probably call this the ship our jobs to china amendment because under this amendment, no american company would be able to manufacture products. and right now there are over 6000 products manufactured using oil byproducts. none of those products would be exported to a foreign country. and we've got a chartier of some of the 6000 products that are

manufactured using oil. in this place, you've got tyers, car tires can't bicycle tires, motorcycle helmets, dashboards for cars, roofing equipment, water pipes, can't manufacture water pipes, close, no clothes manufactured in america because of this amendment. heart valves actually use petroleum byproducts to make her pals. no heart valves under this amendment would be able to be manufactured in america. toothbrushes, football helmets, even crayons, light jackets, parachutes, the parachute with a made in china under mr. markey's amendment. antihistamines. a lot of products made that help save lives. just basic aspirin. aspirin use is petroleum. it's one of the byproducts in

manufacturing aspirin. no aspirin under this amendment would be allowed to be manufactured in america. purses come into your current. you can't go to work with your toolbox anymore if it's made under america because it contains a byproduct of petroleum that might've been refined and manufactured in america. you could buy the product is who is made in india, but not if it was made in america and the company happened to ship any products they make to other countries. by the way, the manufacturer creates american jobs. made in america would no longer be allowed under the markey amendment because you and the other in america to ship it to any other country as well. you can only sell it in america, but experts are no longer allowed on this amendment. just shut all the ports dominated states because you couldn't export products anywhere. so shoes, footballs, lipstick,

eye glasses, bandage is no longer can be made in america if they are exported to another country. under mr. markey's amendment it does have this exception. the president may provide for waivers. wassily had dictatorial powers delegated to the president of the united states. we had a hearing on this committee on the scandal at the obamacare waivers. 1400 different mechanization sent to the white house secretly behind closed doors cutaway for for parts of obamacare for the president. i've been going throughout my district in every small business i asked if anyone has ever had a waiver from obamacare. i've yet to have one person at a waiver from the president. he did get waivers? sei year, aarp, afl-cio, all the groups that need obamacare what he clearly to the white house and their leader. the rails to get a waiver from the president. they probably had to commit to support obamacare to get waivers

from obamacare. what an irony that is. regular folks have to live by obamacare, that certain select friends, crony capitalism that they waiver. look at cylinder. a great example of people using political favors to get special deals. we've seen how that turns out. it doesn't end well for the american taxpayer. look at bowling. unless they use union workers, they can build a plant in south carolina. that is how the president uses waivers. if you make paddocks in america and you happen to do good by markets elsewhere or you can sell and get my jobs, you can do this under this amendment unless he cuts a special secret till with the president. this is the height of crony capitalism and what is wrong with our economy right now. yet under this amendment he would not be able to export any products made in america.

those shots to stay in other countries, but no longer would she be able to have been made in america stands. we've got to reject the amendment. >> gentleman's time is expired. i have on the minority side dishes become around? we have to listen a murky one my time? [laughter] gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. the next mr. chairman, i heard our colleague from massachusetts to oppose it. let me start out by saying, we produce steel in our country. we may import the inr for minnesota or make any from canada. are we going to now see an amendment that we can't export steel? i have this battle sometimes in my own caucus that chemicals and refined products are manufactured in an article in our country is to have manufacturing capability here and so we can ask her to the world.

we have downstream jobson granted louisiana, texas has most of them. i don't mind sharing them. if someone else wants a refinery, i'll help you build it. why would we say you can't explore a private that is producing our country? i'm sure we want all the ghastly move on. we want all the natural gas we can get, but we also realize natural gas is we have to begin to exported or use it for other things, whether it be for transportation fuel, utility companies, hopefully natural gas because it's cheapest available. i guess in almost a lifetime. this amendment -- i don't agree with the bill itself, but this is about amendment because it takes away manufacturing capability to export. on our side of the aisle, steny hoyer has made the leap i make it in america. manufacturing, refined products

and chemicals for manufacturing. in fact, up until high prices of natural gas, chemicals was one of our biggest exported items. and those are jobs that are not only might just hurt, but all over the country. actually pennsylvania has chemical jobs, new jersey. we just don't share the wealth as much. refining his manufacturing. my fear a few years ago was we had countries, including venezuela in the 90s who wanted to build refineries to export to our country. just think if we would've agreed to that in the 1990s. a bunch of guys in congress opposed it. we didn't want to send the crude oil. what if we waited on sending military overseas as we depended on jet fuel from venezuela. why would we not want those production capabilities in this country to produce and send it

overseas. we have great ice cream up right about. lubell. we either we cannot export the rest. that is what we can do with refined products. this is definitely about amendment. i don't think they will send the crude oil -- >> with each of the menu? -- >> with each of the menu? be not only to my colleague from oklahoma. >> thank you, be not only to my colleague from oklahoma. >> thank you, congressman green. >> what do you think would happen into a refining industry here it have an export market? e-mail, when we find a barrel of oil as we all know, there's a lot of byproducts some even cannot be used because of our environmental regulations. but what happened to them and a tough environment anyway if they did not have this export market quick >> i appreciate that.

we have a number of refineries. expert do so, countries in the world to produce lower dsl police are not overseas and it's a great export market. a good example at byproducts is petroleum coke. i have not as a petroleum in our district. it should overseas. if this amendment were part of the law, would we have to bring that petroleum coke? i was hoping we could develop a way to use that an arab country, but so far we can't. that is a byproduct. if you come to my area, you'll see mountains of petroleum getting ready to be exported because they can burn it. i agree with you. >> congressman green, what happen in your district if you couldn't exported at all? >> we have a great market, but we also need to realize, why would we not export?

unary balance of the trade has always been a problem in the last 20 or 30 years. why would we not export and i am like a refined product, just like instead of keyboards from china, i would rather have keyboards made here and send them to china. so why do you take our refined products from being an export market? it makes no sense at all. >> amen, brother. >> i'd be glad to yield to someone. >> gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i find it fascinating that a oftentimes campaigns politics are criticizing people who are somehow sending jobs to china and opec and then we are buying goods from them. if you wait long enough, everything seems to reverse itself and we are criticizing those who make them within the u.s. and want us to go to other countries. let me name some things in the

u.s. which we export. civilian aircraft, passenger cars, medical, dental pharmaceutical, industrial machinery, organic chemicals, the list goes on and on. i'm a friend from texas just pointed out the great concern free trade deficit. trade deficit means we sell you something, you saw some thing, whether cells release loses under the deaths it. let's look at numbers of china. in 2011 last year we had a $272 trade deficit. in 2009, a 226 going dollars trade deficit. in 2008, how about the european union? 201079 alien and 61 billion trade deficit. how about opec? $211,118,000,000 trade deficit. 2,062,000,000,000 when we were buying a lot of oil, 100 seat

billion. >> this is amazing to me we make things and sell things to them rather than not spending my money to them is an opportunity to go jobs. i would be particularly concerned that massachusetts is touting its number three export market is china. maybe what you might want to do is test out the cement and to start out by preventing massachusetts to export in china and the e.u. to see how that state fairs when asked to import more than export. what we do here in this country is make things and sell products to other countries and help our jobs when we refined oil to coastal areas and diesel fuels to other countries. that is exporting things and bringing back money so we can have jobs. that is exporting things and bringing back money so we can have jobs. when we make steel, wondering if

so whether the products we sell and get the money and have our jobs here. now i am really tired also have been addition to buying products from other countries and also sending them to protect their oil fields. i am particularly frustrated because when i went on to bethesda hospital and i'm over there in the navy treating our wounded warriors and i've got to see these kids the time some make love not because we protect the opec oil deal. we have an opportunity to have oil from north dakota and montana so many other states in this country and having our own energy independence. we set up this argument that we shouldn't be allowed to export, we shouldn't be allowed to lower the overall cost of oil. we should continue to have opec with the string hold around us for oil and manufacturing will be sending her kids over there to die to protect you?

please, let's have seen in this chamber in houston committee and understand all these costs and numbers fail and compares them what we see. sending thousands of soldiers to protect mideast oil. we have an opportunity with for thousands of job and our oil. with north american oil, north american workers, north american laborers and operating engineers. what about them? what about american jobs? i have added up to you with protecting opec. i thought it have to is continuing to argue about jobs going off to china. we have an opportunity to do something today and that we think we can make things. manufacture things here. we can't drill for the series and send them to other countries? it is about time. it is about time. do we pause and understood that

what makes america great is our ability to make things, our strength of our military, the ingenuity of the goodness of america never somehow draw this line around our borders and say we will not sell anything to the world anymore, we will suffocate ourselves from breathing arab-american continue the trade deficit, which is destroying our economy. so i urge my colleagues if for no other reason than saving lives of americans we have to go overseas and protect oil fields from a opec. vote no on this amendment and keep america strong. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> i generally recognize in order of seniority and lesser action is similar to mine. gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle is recognized. >> are you trying to say my accent is similar to yours. >> seniority and it's your turn. >> i'm glad my colleagues -- my good friend mr. scully's and

mr. murphy got all that off their chest. i don't know how obama cut in discussion, but i think you feel better now that you've got all that out there. look, i don't support the markey amendment, but i understand why he's offering it. one of the most unfortunate price of this debate will time i've been having a is the hyperbole that we've been hearing from some that this keystone pipeline is going to give us domestic security that all of a sudden we will have a source of oil are we no longer need to buy from all sites are because they've got all this oil coming from canada will be able to use. we know that is not true. i support exporting and i understand the whole process. we've been telling the american people somehow the keystone pipeline delivered the gasoline price. everybody know that it's fantasy. this has been told hundreds of thousands of jobs for americans.

there'll be construction jobs, but this huge number and lastly 75% of the steel and projects from north america. i have news for you. that is far from true, too. but mr. murphy has done here is the result is a bad thing in wireless will support this amendment is to try to point out what we need in this entire debate is truth in advertising. in all, it is a mass if they can develop an environmentally sinewave and i favor building a bus across his teeth and job the eyes on the 30 day fast track in the attempt to what my friend dr. kerry is trying to do. ultimately, this pipeline will be approved once it goes throughout the processes that it needs to go through to ensure people's safety and environmental concerns are night

and i support that. through because construction jobs at people in organized labor. that's a good thing. for those reasons alone i thank you make sense. but let's not kid ourselves. that oil is going down to the gulf and will get refined and a lot of it is going to lead the country go other places. that is the way it works. there's nothing wrong or illegal with that, but that is reality. let's not make americans think we are energy independent because of the keystone pipeline. the gasoline prices go up, let's not delude americans at the keystone type i and would have been fast tracked. the two have nothing to do with one another. let's be sure all is good for a something that 75% worth american steel and not, we are able to certify that is actually a. a lot of good reasons to approve and go through the process the right way and i will oppose the amendment because it is more an

illustration of truth in this debate and what would actually do would be -- or mental. i think we have to give the american overture expectations here and not sell this as a cure-all and all too we have in the united states because it's not true. i yield to democratic colleagues that might want to take advantage of the minute and 30 seconds. >> does anyone want a minute and 30 seconds? >> gentleman notes that. >> it is acceptable under the yield back. >> i will if nobody on my side wants to talk. >> salmon mr. chairman. >> there are some chew his sons as my friend from pittsburgh just mention. one is thought tom brady can't throw and catch the brief beanball, to.

and that in 2011 weekend ported 11.8 million barrels per day of oil for refined gasoline. it is also true that this type line when bill, when started as a plant seven or produce 700 billion barrels up to over a million barrels per day. >> 700,000 barrels. >> i would be a good start. >> so with the reality here is is the refineries along the path, whether it kansas, illinois, oklahoma, texas, louisiana have contracts to purchase phase. each one of those refineries can we find x amount of euros per

day. so if they get it from a reliable source in canada and not from saudi arabia or venezuela, then that adds to our national energy security because it is the reliables doors. we don't have to worry about the number of tankers coming from venezuela for the mood of hugo chavez and whether he will allow that to come to the united states versus china. so there is no doubt here that there is a level of energy security here. there's also no doubt that as this oil comes to the pipeline through the variety of refineries that they will pass and every barrel provided to

refineries, only a portion of that era can be made in two fuel that we use daily in our vehicles. the other parts of that leg access dsl is exported to europe. we have heard a heard from several colleagues that there's other byproducts as well. so this is the markey amendment. i would submit is one of those types of killer amendment that if this becomes law it basically means you can't use this oil from canada, which is really the basis that the environmental argument to not use heavy crude for any fossil fuel. that is what this amendment is really about. i encourage you to put this in perspective as mr. doyle has said. it will create jobs and provide

energy, a level of energy security for his, so that go for that. i yield to mr. whitfield. >> thank you for yielding. just a couple of comments. we also remember experience on the alaska north slope. the oil of originally had an export ban and the yen was controversial and most of president clinton in 1996 and the gao after the export ban was lifted from the domestic production actually increased because the export ban and habited exploration. so i think the export ban would be doing the exact opposite of what we hoped it would do and i would also refer one again to the memo to the deputy assistant secretary for policy analysis at the united states department of

energy and responding to the study by philip baker and the studies braver and started talking about all this oil will be exported. what it has been no, mr. dusek leo basically she told him mr. for a first article he specifically says from their analysis in there to part of energy as they concluded that very little if any of the soil coming into the u.s. would be exported, that there really was no real basis for that. but even if oil is exported, i for one think it might be beneficial because of their huge trade deficit. and let's let the free market work. so i just want to point out those few things i appreciate the gentleman yield in time to me. >> the gentleman yield back.

>> the gentlelady from illinois, and as czajkowski is recognizer for ms. >> an outcome i want to agree with mr. doyle. let's be honest about this legislation. h.r. 3548 is the north american energy access act. at this point in the debate, it seems to me that to be called north american energy export act. suddenly we have changed the conversation from how important it is to have energy security and energy independence and now how great it is to ask for it. so at the very least, we have to have an honest conversation about what this is about. i also want to comment on the gentleman from pennsylvania who talked about national security and the picture of her gunmen in the diner for protection of oil. last friday the young woman for retired brigadier general andersen is the senior logistics officer under general petraeus

in iraq, general andersen was responsible for getting fuel andersen wasups and he stated responsible for getting fuel supply to groups and he stated and i quote, i strongly oppose the keystone excel pipeline because that will give greater national security. the critical element is simply the pipeline keeps our great nation. the dependence that makes us both strategically and operationally vulne nation. the dependence that makes us both strategically and operationally vulnerable. we have to be honest about our national security and whether we are really about energy access and exporting. at i.t. of the balance of my time to mr. marquis. >> i think the gentlelady. i feel a great concern about exports of oil from the united states. that is the free market they say. so i'm looking forward to next week when each of you can support the bill from don young that is coming out on the house floor which will open up to your take refuge to drilling, but

also contains animate the young amendment that bans export of the oil. out of the united states. and look forward to all of you voting beyond many of you vote against. >> what the job in yield quick >> when i just finished. you agree to export that oil, but you are opposing this one and i am looking forward to each of you next week trying to resolve the basically conflict and export premarket principles on the same day. let me just move forward then to the next issue, which is what the bill does. it says no refined product. just so you know what refined products are, they are diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, residual fuel oil coming you tan, kerosene. that is the definition.

that cannot be exported. that has to stay in the united states. what is not a refined product? pantyhose, to rashes, footballers, antihistamines, using oil, which is produced in the united states. that can be exported. those are not refined products. and it the amendment because i want a low price of the oil for toothbrushes. for anyone who makes that progress in the united states. why do i make the amendment because i don't want other countries to have the ability for this oil. the gas oil industry has seven license says to export natural gas. want to hear another big number.

the price of natural gas in the united states right now is half the price of europe. that helps every manufacturer in our country. it's four times lower than asia. that helps all of american industries with much lower prices in the manufacture of steel and everything else and it is a big competitive advantage. what is natural gas and oil industry wants? they want terminals all around the country to create a world price financial gas. we are the saudi arabia of natural gas. what is this all about? part of the same story. how do we export the oil that comes from canada to the united states and send it around the world? grefer louisiana, great for oklahoma. bad for every other state that has been manufacturing bank uses

the oil to create products, which we want to mix around the world and lem exporting not. the united states. no problem exporting not. we keep this pressure natural resource here. >> tenements time is expired. i recognize myself, but i just want to reach your amendment because you miss care arrested a gang. the federal energy regulatory commission shall require every permit on this at to include provisions that ensure any crude oil transported by the keystone excel pipeline and refined products will be entered into domestic commerce for final disposition. as i reach your amendment, it became subtly to refined products, but also crude oil. you might want to check that. i am going to recognize myself for five minutes.

in opposition to the markey amendment. >> first of all, we need to realize that there are two components to this. a crude oil component in the refined product component. on the crude oil it would make no sense at all for the originators of the oil i.e. canadians to ship it to a typical code to export. if you're going to export crude and not use oil in canada, you're going to export the most efficient way and that would not be descended 1500 miles through the united states to the gulf coast. as a matter of fact, the united states is importing 9 million barrels a day and we export very little, less than 50,000 barrels a day at the most recent numbers i have seen.

so you don't have to have a prohibition against exporting crude oil when you have a country imported 9 million euros the day number one and number two, the host country if they want to export it and not use it in their own country, i.e. canada, they'll export a cruise somewhere else in the highest market. the united states get mass-market price right now. on the refined products as mr. green has pointed outroducts mr. green has pointed out in mr. shimkus and others it is a good thing, not a bad thing that we have the refinery at competitive in the world market that we can export some of our refined products. their value added products treated in maintaining jobs in the united states. 74% of all the crude that comes into this country as used in this country. that is the latest eia

statistics. or more and more, we are shifting some of our refined products overseas because we have the competitive industry to do so. we are primarily shipping them to the european market. our refineries are more competitive. we've invested over $300 billion in the last 15 or 20 years and we're able to refine diesel as mr. green pointed out, some out, some of the distal it feels than we actually can be competitive in the european market. that is a good thing, not a bad thing. the gentlelady from the virgin islands has been talking with a plant that of the refinery and her reach into shutting down. i think it's a 500,000 rail per day refinery. it's a little bit older. they are not competitive in its demand for some refined products has declined in the united states, which is the primary

market. apparently they are not competitive enough to ship into the european market. it is going to cost her, her territory quite a few very good jobs. but mr. marquis once too often a amendment to change the young amendment on the floor next week i will support it and go for it. i think maybe it's only putting that on their tickets and democrats hope. >> with the gentleman yield quick >> briefly. >> briefly. >> you don't want any restriction. >> you go to the rules committee and ask to strike the portion of the young bill. i'll support you on that because i happen to agree to. but she should have restrictions. >> i agree. that part of the bill.

drilling in the arctic refuge should stay here.ll. drilling in the arctic refuge should stay here. .. and boston and hollywood from being exported overseas so if we have an industry that is competitive, i don't see any reason to put a restriction -- >> with the gentleman yield?

>> in my last one second, sure. >> the difference is wheel is the reason we are over in the streets and it is the big difference between that and -- >> reclaiming my time the number one security risk to the country. >> we are actively importing less crude oil than we were. with that, my time is expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think mr. marchi understands his amendment isn't going to pass, but it is instructive and gets into a real debate and maybe it is economic heresy that supply isn't going to determine price, and that is the reality. i've already indicated to increase domestic production, i indicated i am for the keystone so we still have the producers in north america as opposed to the middle east.

ai understand that concept and it is an important one. but i have members on the other side depicting the oil industry much like it was depicted in the movie giant with elizabeth taylor and james dean. it's changed. it's totally different. what i'm hearing over there might never been in the oil and gas business but if transcanada is producing the oil are we saying that they are going to put it into the pipeline and then make some end user wherever it is going to be stored or whatever my understanding is they will have contracts early on obligating a certain portion of that to whoever is the highest bidder based on the global market prices. i said last week at the hearing that unless something is changed drastically from last may made

the news or a story by kevin hall and robert ranking, quote from 70% of contractors for the future of we'll delivery are now blocked by financial speculator is largely big investments and hedge funds who never take control of the oil. they just slip the profit. about 30% of the contracts are bought by a purchaser that actually intends to use the oil such as an airline. that is according to the commodities futures trading commission which regulates trade in those contracts. michael mcmaster, a professional testified before congress repeatedly the speculators are pushing the price is well beyond what the supply and demand for and. that is the modern market place in america today. i will say it will supply us with oil produced in north america and that obviously will provide some sort of national

security to my good friend i disagree i think will. but it will not supply us with a more reasonably priced gallon of gasoline at the pump. it's not going to happen. and this is my last year and converse but i would imagine all of you will be returning will be in this room when gasoline is $45 a gallon, trying to explain why the keystone pipeline, which eventually was permitted and built is not producing and affordable gallon of gas for the american consumer which is draining our economy and will continue to drain our economy with high fuel prices. i'm going to share the basic tenet in what he's trying to show. it's not true of the question of dependency on foreign oil that is the central question. it is a dependency on oil itself

i acknowledge i think the next 20 years fossil fuel is an absolutely essential mixed in transportation fuel and otherwise. but what it's doing and what it's taken away is the concerted effort that has been led by individuals as mr. waxman and mr. markey define alternative fuel sources. so you don't join mr. markey in that endeavor either. when we say efficiency, cafe standards, you are not going to on that. the efficiency conservation, you are not going to be with mr. markey on that. alternatives and renewables -- this is my concern. but we are doing is we are regressing. we are going backwards. i know you can say other countries may not follow our lead but that isn't what should

determine what we do in this country when we have the ability to be leaders. so i won't vote for this amendment but i appreciate my colleague from massachusetts making the important point that i think he will be able to refer to in the future testimony and hearing in this exact room years from now when you are trying to explain what didn't happen and you promised here today and i yield back. >> to recognize mr. bilbray blunt counsel's opinion does the amendment as currently written apply to crude oil and refined products or just refined products? >> both. >> the gentleman from california. >> could you elaborate a little bit on that? >> the markey amendment says it applies to the votes the condition applies to any crude oil and transported by keystone xl and all the refined product of origin would be the

importation of crude oil by keystone xl. so that's both crude oil and refined products. >> if i may question the council as well. that means that the industry that purchases the oil in the united states produces, purchases this oil, the toothbrush industry purchases this, that they purchase it, but that the product they make with it or whatever that can be exported under the markey amendment. is that not correct? >> i'm not sure that that is clear either because the calls will be entered into the domestic commerce for the final disposition because final disposition is not defined. the product and where that line ends with the product, what happens with it isn't clear so for instance the refined product that than the chemicals were used to make a product that then

it would prohibit selling that product overseas without more clarity on what the final disposition is. >> when the toothbrush factory purchases the oil to make the toothbrushes, is their anything in this amendment that then in any way restricts the export of those toothbrush's? >> i think the amendment as i am clear because that to the extent those chemicals or whatever is used to make that toothbrush and its presumed the toothbrush is made here, the final disposition if you wanted to sell that toothbrush then overseas without better clarity on the disposition this would prohibit selling that toothbrush to somewhere outside the country. >> if you don't make a toothbrush from crude oil you make plastic. as of the amendment would prohibit the plastic from being exported but it wouldn't

prohibit plastic being made into a toothbrush and the toothbrush being exported because that isn't a refined product under his definition i think. >> i think the separate issue that i am raising the there may not be clarity is the final disposition is. but you're right, the toothbrush is made from plastic and the question would then be when is the final disposition? is final disposition of the making of the toothbrush or at the selling of the toothbrush overseas, what is the final disposition. >> i'm just using common sense on what we call the refined petroleum products. we don't usually call it a finished product. >> my intention here is that the wheel can be used by the plastic industry in the united states in order to create the plastic that's been used by the toothbrush industry. and out that point it is

exported across the rest of the world. so that is the amendment, and as far as i am concerned, that is what the amendment does accomplish. >> the gentleman may want to withdraw his amendment because that's not the way it reads while he's thinking about that we are going to go to mr. bilbray for more debate. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me respond to my dear friend from texas comment about support for green fuel on this side. all i ask him to take a look at my a bill that has been co-sponsored by a democrat that addresses a true green fuel and that is giving equal tax and a

blender benefits through the true green algae fuel that is now being given to a fuel some claim or green but some of us question. that's our slogan in california now and algae is green and the fact you've been talking about corn is yellow so i would challenge you to take a look at the fact that this congress continues to subsidize one form of so-called green technology, and specifically exclude the most promising threshold we have out there that everybody who opposed to be green but won't take the time to correct it and we will go back and talk about that later but let me say mr. chairman, it is interesting that i was looking at the obama administration offered $44 billion to the auto industry in this country in the grants and loan guarantees and a lot of

others. we are not talking about getting permits. we are talking about getting money and when the administration gave money to the auto industry, i didn't see any condition of those loans that require that the although only be sold in the united states. even though the strategy was sold that we were going to make america accessible to the new fuel-efficient automobiles. but with that package, the obama administration didn't please the condition of the auto industry for $44 billion. but this amendment is proposing to place on this pipeline. now look, we are talking about regulations the issue on both sides we should recognize the we talk about energy independence, we talk about job creation. as somebody that spent 16 years, 15 years working as a regulator, government regulation is one of the major barriers of the

creation of energy independence in this country and if we are not brave enough to admit we have over are regulated the ability to create jobs and create energy in this country we will never serve our constituents. let me bring up this issue of export of the fuel in california we require the cultural low fuel costs. its outlook and many areas around the country under by epa and the clean air act. if the gentleman from massachusetts wants to place this amendment on this bill come is he also willing to exempt all fuel mandate and eliminate all fuel mandates and clean fuel mandates that may be affected by this amendment because let me tell you something a lot of this exported fuel cannot be used in many places in this country.

you can't play this game and not to get what is driving the machinery and so much you ought to be seen as being driven by the regulations mandated by this congress and federal government and then we are upset about the results but we don't want to go back and corrected. and i just want to point out the biggest problem, mr. chairman, of things like mr. waxman's so-called renewable fuel mandate is not but we try new things or make mistakes, but 25 years later, 20 years later we are not brave enough to at bat we make a mistake and go after it. and i yield back. >> with the gentleman yield? >> thank the gentleman for yielding. he kind of stole my thunder in regard to the automobile industry chrysler and general motors, 25, 35 billion-dollar bailout. certainly as mr. bilbray pointed out no restriction in regard to selling those automobiles in the

non-domestic market really don't think you would hear the success story that they are reporting today is that have been the case. let me go back to this issue i think leo mr. markey a debt of gratitude. i would say all of the women of the world probably are very pleased to know now that pantyhose is a refined product. they may be a little disappointed in china and taiwan and south korea to know that they can't go shopping and get pantyhose made in america and this about the toothbrush like it's okay we cancel the toothbrush on a stick but not a toothbrush on a plastic handle. mr. markey's amendment is not a good amendment. i know she's been looking at it, thinking about it and i hope the gentleman will decide to withdraw it because it really doesn't mean a lot of sense. >> your time is expired. does mr. dingell seek recognition? he's the only minority member who hasn't spoken.

>> i have an amendment to be offered later but i don't seek recognition at this time. >> the gentleman from louisiana, dr. cassidy is recognized. >> i agree with mr. baliles. it's time to have a little truth. i'm struck by the hostility to the blue-collar jobs that this amendment express's. and i keep wondering why are they so hostile to these jobs. i've never herd four and so much today. with that said let's inject some truth to it first the decline in the oil imports from mexico and venezuela come and this will replace that. second, the question is whether or not this is going to be shipped overseas. i would like to submit a record for the department of energy but let me cut to the chase in this particular part of it the department of energy says it concludes yet exports of canadian oil sands from port arthur are unlikely. as of this is the department of

energy statement. again let's inject some truth. but then mr. marchi says if it is unlikely let's go ahead and on wall -- of late anyway. there's an article today in the journal in which ' jim bacchus of wto, former democrat from florida, congressman, who says that all forms of protectionism are appealing particularly in an election year and then adds that there is recent action by the united states against china for the similar export restriction similar to this of china not allowing commodities to read and we have said china has broken the free trade law with a system of export tax quotas and goes on to say that we would be at risk of offending the same law that we are kind of going after china on if we attempted to do something as well. also, the energy expert in the council on foreign relations is

quoted in the same article. if this were somehow it trapping product in the united states that otherwise would be exported to the ultimate impact on gasoline prices could very well be that rather than good. it would drive up prices. that's a reason why someone from massachusetts should oppose this, not just someone from louisiana. now then there's the issue of whether or not the port arthur trade zone allows it to evade paying the u.s. trade taxes. well, with respect to u.s. taxes, the fact that port arthur is a trade zone in the different source has no bearing on the u.s. revenue from canadian oil sands imports or exports to read these imports just like the mexican ones are not substituting under nafta. i looked it up and i think mr. markey you voted in favor of nafta. so actually the trade treatment of this product to the free

trade zone this resulted to the nafta treaty and suddenly the become something we object to. lastly i said what is the true agenda why are they hanging the blue-collar job? why are these guys and gals who would be able to forecast benefits and good wages. my friends on the other side of the aisle. and so the last thing i will read as from "the new york times" and "the new york times." obviously "the new york times," we know what that means. so this is an article to the politics of keystone xl to read as it turns out the environmental movement doesn't just want to shut down keystone. the goal discovered recently talking to the executive director is much bigger. it's part of a broader effort to stop the expansion of tarzan. it's based on choking off the ability to find markets for the tar sands oil. the writer in "the new york times" goes on to say this is a ludicrous goal. if it were to succeed would be

damaging to the national interest of both canada and the u.s. and it has no chance of succeeding. energy is the single most important industry in china. three-quarters of the canadians agree with the harbor state for suffocation strategy. china's first for oil will hardly be deterred. there's at least one country in north america that understands where the national the interest lies. too bad it's not the united states of america. so for the national interest is for the interest of our workers and last the interest of truth. i asked both sides of the aisle to support this project and yelled back. >> would you yield the last 40 seconds? >> just to remind people when you speculate on the commodity products there's winters and losers, as we always talk about those who win and we never talk about the loose in that. on a commodity product, canada is not an opec which i think would be gratifying for us to have access to the oil. keystone is not an oil company is a pipeline company that does

have oil companies that are partners in that aspect. but the people who are mining the oil sands are bp and china has a big interest. we sell a lot of coal in this country overseas to china, and i hate this to be a prelude to stopping that and yelled back. >> goodell and from texas seeks a recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. and this comes as no surprise but i speak in opposition to the amendment. i went to thank my colleagues from massachusetts for his advice about voting against the amendment to it i can assure you. it's real simple. whether they make a product the world demands and pays american workers to manufacture, this is a positive development. when an industry in the united states manufacturers in excess of with the u.s. consumers demand is able to export the

product overseas, this is a positive development as well. an industry that is this successful is able to hire more american workers and help decrease our trade deficits. we see the situation in many sectors of the economy. heavy machine manufacturers like caterpillar, aerospace companies like boeing, and yes many ship abroad as well. it is obviously incorrect to assume they will produce the same amount of aircraft or set the same amount of traps a significant portion of the demand is curtailed by law. the same applies to the refined petroleum product. american refineries in excess of what the u.s. economy needs to read only supply of what is demanded. if the amendment wally or to be forced to reduce operations than

of laid-off workers. i want to address another issue as a member of congress who has fought in at least to be even if some of our products are exported, the keystone crew was still to play displayed a opec crude that is refined and is in some cases it's important to have a reliable source of crude despite what we see right now in the market aren't because of any supply issues, the because of uncertainty in the strait of hormuz. the fed countries in egypt, libya, tunisia, iran threatened to shut down again our problems are flown on a mission to the straits of hormuz. it's a very narrow. 40 miles wide that point and

from houston to galveston down the freeway and the way they have these little islands in the commercial traffic and the takeaways are very close to the push to the northern part of the street. it's very shallow. the transport crude close to the streets of our moose. if the shutdown will strike dramatically so there's a national security issue. about three years ago the pipeline called the clipper which came from the same spot in canada and came over to lake superior on the great lakes and this is a record decision by the state department for the pipeline. it applies today. the department state is determined through the view of the product application that the

clipper project would serve the national interest in a time of considerable tension and a time of considerable political attention and other major producers in countries by providing additional access to the proximate stable supply of crude oil with minimum transportation requirements from a reliable channing parked in the united states with which we have free trade agreements and further argue the security of the supply. if that ring true three years ago it rings true more so today. again, and one other thing we need to talk to in the process of the other side is demonized they also need to realize that this is going to be developed. they're the most technologically advanced in the entire world the ones that are the best in terms of the environmental - impact of producing this oil if i'm going

to bet on how canada or opec i'm betting on canada. i urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. thank you and i yield back my time. >> the gentle lady from california seeks time on her own accord i believe it is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. sherman. this has been a very interesting debate not only on this amendment but on others that have been offered, and i've listened with a great deal of attention to what members of said on both sides of the issue regarding the underlining of legislation. let me just outline of the things that really troubles me about this.

first call, i think that this is a terrible way to legislate. and let me tell you why. no presidential permit is required for the pipeline. there's a requirement that to issue a permit for the construction of the pipeline within 30 days of receiving an application. so no one is interested in what the responsibility of an agency or for review in putting my constituents. so this is on a high-speed rail for being approved. just do it by degree, why bother going to an agency? you are telling and agency to turn an answer in a is a predetermined answer and that's

that. you wait all of the applicable requirements under nepa. if they don't act on the permit application for 30 days to permit is deemed to have been approved. i've never heard of such a thing. i've never heard of such a thing there are people that are being challenged let's put it that way by the company in question. what bothers me the most is is the sense that the american people have that we are not looking after them and other interest, special-interest, whenever it is what it comes to money and campaign and whether it comes to oil companies,

whenever it is, that all comes before their interest. are there some interests that are going to benefit from this? no question about it. no question about it. do i think the jobs are inflated? i do. there are still some jobs that are going to be created in this. but what is so deeply troubling to me is how rough shod this is. that the matter with the facts are they don't matter. they just don't matter. and i believe that this decision if it is finally approved, it's going to come home to haunt us. it's going to come home to haunt the congress because of the way that it was done, and that the interest of the american people were not really taken seriously. i appreciate what people are saying on both sides about markets and how they work, and i think very good points have been

made and there may be some things in the amendment that need some tightening up. but what is at the base of his amendment is to put the american people first in this. and you know what, under the guidance of oil we are saying that we are putting their interest first set no one can step in and do anything according to the underlining of legislation because you have already predetermined that they simply have to stand the paper approved. that is not the way that we are supposed operate in congress, and we are not supposed to operate that way because we are supposed to be here more than anything else for the common good and the interest of the public. and if there is anything that i hear from my constituents, it's that they feel as if a lot of

other things conversed with the congress, but not them and the good of the country and they are worried sick about it, and i think that is really what is at least today. so i appreciate the debate. members come up with very good things on both sides of the aisle, but this is where i come down. i'm not going to support the markey amendment, and it bothers me not how many votes it gets because i think at the heart of this is what i just stated. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back to the estimate is any other member who hasn't spoken seek recognition for purposes of debate of the markey amendment? seeing no member seeking recognition, time for debate on the amendment, let me just -- time for debate has elapsed and we will recognize to ask questions of council before we call for the vote which prior to

the agreement mr. rampton and mr. waxman will be postponed until approximately 12:30 so mr. markey has some questions. >> the first question to council is looking at the amendment when and americans plastics company buys oil or refined petroleum products has the oil or refined products entered into domestic commerce? >> welcome the end of that walls in the amendment -- >> has it entered into american commerce when an american plastics company buys the refined petroleum product? has it entered into the commerce? >> yes. >> second question. now, once the product is turned into the plastic would ever be

turned back into oil and finally disposed of is it no longer oil in other words, has there been a final disposition of it? >> that is the part it is unclear looking for instance it can be if that's unclear -- benefit if it is put into plastic or steel is that not been finally disposed of? >> the plastic or steel could be recycled for instance. >> can be turned into oil again? >> no but whether or not --. >> it can be recycled into the classics but it cannot be recycled into wheel is that not correct? >> it has already been reached. >> taking it to its most extreme if it is landfill over a long

period of time it will become leal again. >> then it can be exported again in the landfill was that not correct? >> i was talking about the -- >> over the 50 or 60,000 a year period it can then be turned back into oil is that what you are saying? over millions of years like a dinosaur? is that what you are reading? is a theoretical possibility dinosaur to be turned back into baliles and therefore it is and its final disposition? >> in reading the language it didn't seem the final disposition was whether or not it could be turned back into oil, so the final disposition is what is exposed and so that seems like the end of its life were the indigenous used to the estimate is where it has been finally disposed of when the plastics company turns it into plastic. otherwise the council is giving

a totally absurd interpretation bear it could go to a landfill and over a million years be turned into oil again. that is an upsurge interpretation by the council, and she is absolutely -- speegap actually that i disagree with. i don't think the language is clear. i can appreciate the interpretation you have the language as far as what the final disposition is is unclear. >> is a plastics company -- >> the chair is going to postpone the vote on the amendment until the full committee chairmen and ranking member are back from their of their committee hearings. does any member seek recognition for what reason is the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i asked you for unanimous consent to make a statement on the pronunciation briefly.

the product is called bitchimin. >> you have to be careful how you see it. estimate in the interest of comedy, when you said massachusetts instead of massachusetts, there was no pronunciation correction emanating from our side any more than my drill sergeant -- >> i have the benefit of the texas exception which is however we say if that's the way it is as far as we are concerned, and we say nevada, not nevada. so we have the of regional -- >> of the fcc will not penalize us. >> let's get control of the committee. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from michigan has an amendment at the desk. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> mr. chairman, it would be wonderful live like my

colleagues to have the atom of all context of this amendment. >> the staff how does have to hand out the dingell amendment and the clerk will report the amendment >> substitute amendment offered by mr. dingell to the amendment in the nature of substitute. >> you haven't finished reading. >> without objection has read. to every kind of like to have it read. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following. section one, keystone exfil pipeline project authorization and permit to read the procedures established under the executive order 13337 as issued by president george w. bush on april 30th, 2004, shall be carried out with respect to authorization of and permit towards the keystone xl project.

>> to read >> by thank, mr. chairman. you will note, my friends and colleagues that this amendment is going to utilize the procedure set forth by president george w. bush on april 30th, 2004, with regard to the permitting of the pipeline. the amendment would require about permitting processes follow clearly understood by the president george w. bush. my friends in the majority who have been pushing so hard on this are concerned about the amount of time is going to take to improve to fill the pipeline. and in the executive order and question president bush had a timely process in which an issue like this can be considered to read agencies can be consulted regarding the bup permit application or required to

submit their views within 90 days. the environmental review can be completed and experts who know about the subject and a project like this can and will be consulted. and there will be dealt with by agencies with greater expertise than the state department on matters of the permitting which will go forward. instead of allowing this process to play out, congress has chosen to rush the administration even though there are serious problems with the pipeline. and well established and well understood mechanisms for issuing permits of this kind are unfortunately disregarded in the legislation before us. the legislation before us is going to be a splendid source of litigation, lawsuits and political trouble by reason of the fact that a whole different

mechanism is substituted over the well established practices which take place under the regular permitting process. this is a 1700-mile pipeline that's going to cross rivers,, aquifers, farmlands, municipalities, and it's going to create an absolutely magnificent opportunity for the litigation and ill will. so what we are essentially doing is, fighting expedited fashion it process that will give more weight than an executive order even know what we are using as the foundation for this is the executive order which was issued by president george w. bush. it was his intention at that time to follow for word and to see to it that this process moves speedily. i happen to be a friend of the pipeline. i want to see this pipeline

built. i want to see it start moving oil down to the refineries in the gulf states. i would observe to my colleagues this is something to pick up the line. the pipeline will be built going west or it's going to be built going south. i want to see it built going south because of it is built going south, it goes through the united states and use is u.s. steel and u.s. labor. it also will see to it that the refining is done in the united states and not in china because the united states will get the business but more importantly it will also do so in a careful and responsible fashion which we will not see done if it is done in china. and the ordeal as going to come and it is going to be produced in one way or another and we might as will see to it that the benefits are derived by the

united states. having said this, we are simply codify in the process, extraditing the matter coming and avoiding the wealth of litigation that will occur and which i can assure you will be handled very well by the environmentalists in their opposition in the pipeline and the production of the oil. having said that we might as well see to it that we use an understood process that will give acceptance to that process and the we do so in a way which confers the benefit of the united states jobs in the united states and other things but which does it in a way which could be understood by people by reason of the fact that we are using seóul prophecies that have been used since the dates of the alaska pipeline in the 70's and since the days when the national in frear metal policy act was enacted into law. ..

to help us move this pipeline forward and to do so in a responsible and understood fashion in a way which will enable us to get the business of the nation done so we can perhaps get down to some other things we have to do around this place. with that i yield back 14 seconds. >> announcement yields extra time in the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. >> i'm going to rise in opposition of this amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> i appreciate where the gentleman from michigan is coming from on the basis of this amendment, but the reality is, this is an extraordinary situation because we have a president that shows -- chose to deny this permit, putting us in this position. the presidential permit as done by executive order of the reassertion, i agree the whole purpose of this bill is to move forward on the pipeline despite the president's effort to kill it. it is the president who has said or, let me back up. it is the state department who said they have enough information to make a decision.

the volumes of binders sitting by mr. pitts is the end our mental study the final environmental study, so saying that there isn't one is just outright wrong. the state department said they had enough information here that they were working eligible he and would make a decision before december 31. it is the president then, after the nrdc, the sierra club that mr. cassidy pointed out during his statement on beos got amendment said that this was going to be the line, this pipeline was going to be the line in the sand that the environmental community drew for the president. the president replied to that by saying, i am going to delay this

until after the election. it is the president that made this a political football when he said he was going to put his election-year politics ahead of what is in the best interest of this nation and this pipeline. so, that is what put us in this predicament and we are not going to go back to the politics that is being played within the white house right now. so this is the best mechanism, that means forward. it says in this bill that we are going to take all of the work product that the state department said was sufficient. we carve out that 30-mile or maybe 40-mile, maybe 50-mile jog in the state of nebraska and let that precede but start on what has already been done. so, let's get on with it, let's put the politics aside.

the president left us no choice but to work around the presidential decision-making here because we already know that he is not going to make the decision until after the election, and by the way, the pipeline has contracts to the refineries that have to be met and the only way to accomplish that would be to start construction as soon as possible. so, i respectfully request to be put into the record a unanimous consent to put in the u.s. department of state's memorandum meant for the alberta clipper pipeline that says, when the state department followed regular procedure and the presidential permit was authorized, and not caught up in politics because this was 2009, not 2012, the state department

said the approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal in a difficult economic period about the future reliability and availability of a portion of the united states energy imports in the immediate term, the shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the united states. let's do that for the keystone pipeline as well. >> without objection, it will be submitted for the record and the gentleman yields bachus time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i support mr. dingell's amendment because i think it's a sensible one. like colleagues across the aisle, to say transcanada is in not getting any special consideration but that is really what this deal is about. this is a bill that is just chock full of exceptions. it applies to only one pipeline.

rather than pass a regulatory earmark for keystone, mr. dingell's amendment codifies the executive order currently governing pipeline order crossings. if this amendment were to be adopted than all pipelines would have to play by the same rules. there would be one set of rules for keystone xl and one set of rules for everyone else. so, i supported and again i think it's sensible. i think it's a much better way to go and i would be happy to yield to mr. dingell. >> you know, the only thing the state department is really concerned with and with which they have expertise is in letting the permit go across the u.s. canadian border. that is the only area they have expertise in. they are going to have to be all manner of environmental decisions made about all manner of other questions, crossing

rivers or crossing streams, going past national forests and public lands, federal, state and local, dealing with the concerns of people and cities, the question of safety and hazard and pollution of the water and air and all matter of other things. questions of jobs and the impact it will have upon persons of limited means and things of that kind. the consequences of interesting that kind of situation to an agency so lacking in -- ethics is a very serious one and we will regret it. the other point i'm trying to make an apparently i can't seem to get through is you are substituting here in this legislation something which is a totally new and poorly understood process. essentially what is going to happen here is the governor of nebraska is going to make

decisions which are going to become the decisions for every governor, for every state and for every federal, state or local agency that would be involved in the permitting of this kind. i think that is unwise in the extreme and it's going to infuriate the environmentalists who are going to be on this like a duck on a -- and the end result which will be you won't see litigation going on, perhaps for generations because of this question. because the legislation before us does not abate the opportunity of citizens to litigate. if you really want this pipeline and if you really want is pipeline expedited, you will follow the leadership of president george w. bush, who went out to do this and in a rather thoughtful way, minimizing the outrage felt by the environmentalists and removing most of the opportunity for the environmentalists to

have either credibility in their litigation or the opportunity to actually litigate these questions. and this is just plain common sense. is a going to take a little more? yes. in terms of time. but that is not bad in much of that work has already been done so that it doesn't have to be replicated a second time or a third time. having said this, is it going to infuriate the environmentalists? yes, but less so than the other and credibility for ordinary citizens is going to be enhanced and protected. and it will be able to be defended by persons like my good friend from nebraska, who can say well, we have done this in a way which is thoughtful and which considers the concerns of everybody who would ordinarily be involved in the decision make them process. i am not going to tell you that

anybody is going to be satisfied with the results of this or any other amendment that we are going to be offering today or the legislation that is before us. i can only tell you that if we are going to do this, let's try and do it in the most sensible way, avoiding the difficulties which would be created like setting up a curious new process which is going to infuriate the environmentalists and cause all matter of litigation and let it remind you that when these matters get into the court, they stay there for a long time. and let me remind everybody on this committee that the environmentalists have established a splendid system of environmental law in which they have law firms that are just salivating about the prospects of the possibilities of taking this kind of thing in the form of the legislation before this committee to court so they can

have great fun and in the process you are creating believe it or not, full employment practices act for the lawyers. i encourage you to accept the amendment. it will save time, money and it will get the pipeline builds more speedily. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> the gentlelady seeks recognition. the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> thank you very much and we certainly have great respect for the gentleman from michigan and his amendment would put this project back to where it was and in our honest to view, the president himself, mr. obama come, politicize this issue when he originally indicated that he was going to postpone any decision until after the election. and that is okay because politics is politics and we play our politics and you play your

politics in the president plays his politics. but the reason that we feel this way is because those of us on the side generally believe it is in the national interest that this pipeline be built. and if we return to the executive order that was used by president bush, i am convinced this pipeline will never be built, and i also do not have any illusions that if this pipeline is built under whatever circumstances, that there will be 20 -- plenty of lawsuits. in fact the other day i was talking to people epa and they indicated they have 700 lawsuits over epa pending right now on the clean air act and clean water act alone. but, when the president made his decision and he said i'm not going to have enough time to review this, he left the

impression with the american people that the route change, therefore there really hasn't been enough time to look at this. well, there has been 40 months to review this pipeline, and 11 agencies have looked at it in the federal government. there've been seven committee beatings into bills that have passed the house of representatives and one even signed into law by the president. secretary of state clinton herself indicated that her speech at the commonwealth club in san francisco in october of 2010, when asked a question are you going to approve the keystone pipeline, she said i am inclined that to do so based on information that we have. so really the only thing that has changed here is the 60-mile route in nebraska. everything else is the same. this is a 1700-mile pipeline so the only thing that has changed is the route in nebraska.

so all of the agencies have looked at it. the state department even issued their final environmental impact statement in august of 2011 and in that environmental impact statement, they indicated that between the option of building the pipeline and not telling the pipeline, the preferred decision was to build the pipeline. one reason for that was that it could not build and this oil comes by canada by rail or by truck, the omissions would be much greater than they are using the pipeline. so, it seems reasonable to adopt the legislation because basically what it says is yes, first we whoa a decision within a certain period of time. the state of nebraska has the

opportunity to look at this route and take their environmental decisions based on that route. nepa has already been adopted would stay in place and the pipeline could go on and we could start building the pipeline in areas outside of the state of nebraska. while nebraska is going through its process to finalize. so i think this pipeline has been adequately studied. everyone that has looked at it indicates the protections are there and the only issue is 60 miles within a 1700-mile pipeline, so with all the respect we have for the gentleman from michigan i believe the adoption of his amendment would really defeat our purpose and would probably lead to this pipeline ever being built. so with that i would respectfully oppose this amendment. >> would you yield your last 30 seconds?

thank you mr. whitfield. the two feet of documents over here is the environmental study that was done on the entire route from canada down to the refineries. mr. pitts is holding part of that up. now, it's important to note that because all of the work has been done. what was clear to the president at the beginning of this process is what the environmental community would come out and draw the line in the sand it's egg you need to kill this project. and they even said, one of the gentleman in the environmental community said, this is the way to get your mojo back, your environmental mojo back so what is different about this past is that this has become the war of the environmentalists now. >> the gentleman's time is expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i'm opposed to this amendment.

i respectfully oppose this amendment. you know i think the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. we are not getting any results from the state department. the president has had ample time to make a decision on this. he could do it through executive order. we know he is use that in the past. he hasn't done it. he has delayed and delayed and excellent used excuse after excuse after excuse to not grant this project. you know the president has really failed in this case and i think that the biggest thing, not only is it the right thing to do, but it creates jobs in america. and right now the only jobs that this president has really created in america are irs agents in census takers. these are private-sector jobs, 20,000 or more to be employed by the construction of this pipeline. why is that not a good idea

right now? unemployment is over a percent, 50 million people out of work. unemployment is actually higher than that right now and we have an opportunity here in america to have a project that revolutionizes our country by 20,000 jobs and fully implemented. this pipeline would directly and indirectly create over 100,000 private sector jobs in america and this isn't a stimulus bill. this bill requires zero money for the taxpayer, zero. it is what we should be doing. it's a shame it's not happening and that is why i oppose this amendment. i'd also like to reserve some of my time or congressman terry. >> i don't need it anymore, thank you. >> would the gentleman yield? i will just end with this. i wish my friend mr. kerry terry would use the microphone with the binders on because they are about three feet high. two feet, it to double stacks.

because he has gone through all the studies. they are complying with nepa. we are talking about 60 miles out of a 1700-mile pipe process that will be resolved in the state of nebraska so i just want to end by the irs report and talk about who does have the authority? who really does have the authority to confirm or reject the pipeline? the crs did a report. a source of congressional authority to regulate foreign commerce. article i section 8 the constitution recognizes congress to regulate commerce whereas an independent presidential authority in matters respecting foreign congress to arise from any authority, congress's power over foreign commerce is plainly enumerated to the constitution suggesting that its authority in this field is preeminent.

in a review of the origins of the constitution borne commerce clause this warrant special counsel of the department of justice legal counsel emphasize the placement of the commerce of power stating that the power to regulate foreign commerce at the national level with the vested in congress. the debate at the philadelphia convention over whether it is a majority or supermajority would be required to enact more -- demonstrates the framers intended such regulation to be made by a legislative body rather than an executive or a judicial one. and with that i am pleased with this movement by my colleague from nebraska. i think we are on firm, legal ground. we will revisit this again and with that i yield back my time to the gentleman from oklahoma who then yields it back to me.

is anyone else seeking recognition? seeing no one, the question is on the amendment. per the agreement with chairman upton and ranking member waxman, both will be postponed on the dingell amendment at 12:30 when the conference committee returns. >> the gentleman requests a recorded vote as per the agreement with chairman upton and ranking member waxman. that will be rolled into the series of three votes. once we re-adjourn, i mean once we start again at 12:30. with that, this markup is in recess. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

medical professional groups believe the changes would jeopardize the future of the nhs. members also pay tribute to queen elizabeth as this week marks the 60th anniversary of her ascension to the throne. from london, this is 35 minutest >> mr. andy slaughter. >> thank you mr. speaker.ker. before listing my gauge mentz i'm sure the wbehole house would wish to w join with me and payig tribute to her majesty the queen. and what >> in is an absolutely historic week marking the 60th anniversary of further a session

to the throne. her majesty's six years of remarkable leadership and dedicated to public service are in inspiration to us all, and something the whole country and whole commonwealth can be immensely proud of. [shouting] members will obvious have the opportunity to individual tributes during the humble address debate. this morning i had meetings with minister colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house i shall further such meetings later today. >> i'm sure the whole house, not least myself, wish to join the prime minister and his warm tribute to her majesty. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, in march last year the prime minister said there is no reason for there to be fewer front-line police officers. mr. speaker, can the prime minister now confirm that front-line officers numbers have been cut in 40 out of 43 police forces? >> the proportion of officers on the front line is up.

[shouting] and i'm sure he will want to join me in congratulating mayor johnson on his excellent record on crime. [shouting] in our capital. total crime is down, violent crime is down on buses and tubes. 11,000 knives and guns have been taken off our streets. there are 1000 more officers on the streets of london at the end of his term then at the beginning. that together with his reminder of the rule of the dangers of tweeting i think is a good start for the day. [shouting] >> does my right honorable friend share my disappointment, the overthrow yesterday of the first democratic elected president in a coup d'état? and giving up historic links with the island, will the government by the way of a message to all they can to ensure that no violence results

and that the democratic institutions remain? >> well, my honorable friend is right. this country does have strong links with the maldives and does have a good relationship with the president. i think we have to be careful. the president has resigned and we have a strong interest in the well being of several thousand british tourists, and in a stable and democratic government in the maldives. high commissioner is in the capital now. we call on the new government to demonstrate its respect for the rights of all political parties and their members, and to ensure that the constitution is upheld. we advise british tourist to avoid nonessential travel to the island and those using the airport and the tourist resorts should exercise caution. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. -- mr. speaker, can i join the prime ministers in paying tribute to her majesty, the queen, as we celebrate a time of jubilee.

her dedication to the country and the public service is an inspiration and honor to us all. we all look forward to the official celebration later this year. which will enable us to celebrate both her majesty and our country. mr. speaker, on the day the prime minister completed his nhs listening exercise, he said this, some of the people who work in the nhs were skeptical of our changes. today, we are taking people with us. [laughter] and it is, and it is in that series of unity that we -- [laughter] might he think he failed? >> today, 95% of the country is covered by general practitioners who not only our support our reforms, they are implementing our reforms. [shouting] and just, and just come and just

today -- >> order. the house must calm down. we have a long way to go. lets you the answer. the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and just today, 50 foundation trusts have written to the newspaper in support of our reforms and object into what they are proposing. and the signature at the top of the list which he may not have noticed is one and campbell, the former labour mp for cambridge. sheet, running her foundation trusts supports perforce. that is what happened. labour mps leave his house and they start implementing coalition policy. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, even he doesn't believe that, nonsense he just came out with. last friday, last friday the royal college of general practitioners said this about his health bill.

and i quote, it will cause irreparable damage to patient care and jeopardize the nhs. well, starting from a second position and it's nice to see him here. [shouting] [laughter] >> some distance away, i notice. mr. speaker, the prime minister, the prime minister said, the prime minister said he wants the voice of dominance to be heard in the nhs. why doesn't he listen to them? >> it's always good to get a lecture on happy family from the right honorable member. [laughter] [shouting] i care passionately about our nhs, not least because what it's done for my family and because of the amazing service that i have received. now, i want to see that excellent service implemented for everyone.

and that means two things. it means we've got to put more money into the nhs and we are putting the money and. i did also means we've got to reform the nhs. he used to be in favor of the reform. let me begin this. who said this? to safeguard the nhs in tougher fiscal times, we need sustained reform. that was in the labour manifesto the last election. [shouting] and on the issue of money, because the money in a passionate in nhs is important we are committed to 12 and half billion pounds in this parliament. and yet his health spokesman, sitting right there, said and i quote, it would be a responsible and irresponsible to spend more money on the nhs than not in favor of the money, not in favor of the reform, a are just a bunch of opportunists. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> know, mr. speaker. isn't this interesting? because he says this is all

about reform. the tory reform group has come out against these proposals. [laughter] i have to say, mr. speaker, it comes to something when even the tories don't trust the tories on nhs. [laughter] listen to what the chair of the royal college of gp's -- oh, oh, oh, oh. when the people can when they want to put in heart of the nhs, they think about their bill they just -- listen to what she said. and i quote, this bill is a burden. it makes no sense. it's incoherent. it won't deal with the big issues. and it will result in a health service that certainly will never match the health service we had 12 months ago. mr. speaker, which part of that

doesn't he understand? >> let's look at what's happened to the nhs over the last 18 months. yes, let's look at the figures. 100,000 patients treated more every month. 4000 extra doctors in the nhs. the number of clinical staff up. the level of hospital acquired infections down. the number of people who are in mixed wards down by 914%. that is what's happening because you have a combination of money going in and reform. we know what happened if you don't put in the money, and you don't do the reform because there's one part of the nhs that is run by labour. and that is in wales. so let us have a look at what is happening to the nhs in wales. they cut the money, and one-third of people are waiting longer than 18 months. 18 weeks. that is what's happening in labour's nhs, and if he didn't put them in income if he didn't have the reforms it would happen

right here, to. >> ed miliband. >> i'm not surprised, mr. speaker, he's getting so agitated because he thought, because he thought that the nhs was the way to modernize the conservative party. and i'm afraid it's coming apart. and i'll tell him why it's coming apart, because the promises he made before the election are coming back to haunt him. we all remember that promise, no more top down and re- organization. and now he says he knows better than the doctors, better than the nurses, better than the midwives, better than the patient's associations. people who day in, day out rely on and devote their lives to the health service. now mr. speaker, this is a matter of trust in the prime minister. can he honestly looked people in the health service in the eye and say he kept his promise of no more top down reorganization? >> what we're doing is cutting

the bureaucracy in nhs. we are taking out four and aors, nurses, hospitals, health care assessment. that is what is happening in nhs. but there's one group of people, i won't listen to and that is the people who ran the nhs under labour. this is what they did. 6 million pounds wasted on nhs computer. 250 million pounds spent on private sector operations but were never carried out. we still got private finance initiative agreements where we pay 300 pounds every time someone changes a lightbulb. that is what we got from labour. we are putting the money in. we're putting the reforming. the operations are a. the waiting times are done. the nhs is improving and that's the way it's going to stay. [shouting]

>> i'll tell him about our record on nhs, mr. speaker, the shortest waiting time in nhs history. [shouting] more doctors and nurses than ever before. [shouting] the highest level of patient satisfaction ever in the health system and. [shouting] but everyone will have heard a prime minister unable to defend the promise he made, the promise of no more top down reorganization. a prime minister who has broken his word. and the reality is this, all his attention is on this pointless top down reorganization, and the front line is suffering. the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks up under him. a&e targets being missed, canceled operations. mr. speaker, why won't he just give up and stop wasting millions and drop his bill? [shouting] >> if the record were so good why were they thrown out of the last election? [shouting] now, let me just -- let me --

[shouting] >> order. i'm worried. i'm worried about opposition members. they must call themselves. the prime minister. >> let me remind the right honorable gentleman in of a clear test that he set for the reform and that he set for the government. he said the test was whether waiting times and waiting list would come down. let me now give him the figures. the figures are these. inpatient waiting time down. outpatient waiting time down. the number of people waiting more than a year down to its lowest ever. the number of people waiting for six months down. and, indeed, the number of people on the waiting list. what he said was the clear test, that is down. that's what it proves about this labour leader, even when he moves the goalposts he can't put in the back of the net. [shouting]

>> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, the person is moving the goalpost is the prime minister. the reality is that the key test that was set for the health service was a number of people working more than 18 weeks. that number is up 43% since the general election. however, much he twists and turns, that is the reality. and look, mr. speaker, he knows in his heart of hearts this is a complete disaster. that's what his aides are saying the health secretary should be taken out and shot because they know it's a disaster but the reality about this bill is this. that doctors know, the nurses know it's bad for the nhs, and patients know it's bad for the nhs. every day he fights for this bill, every day trust in him on nhs ebbs away an everyday it becomes clear the health service is not safe in his hand. [shouting] i'm going to tell them that grim prospect for the right honorable friend are a lot better than

his. [laughter] that's what this is about. this is not a campaign to save the nhs but this is a campaign to try to save his leadership. and i make this prediction. the nhs will go on getting better and his prospects will go on getting worse. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. when the war program was introduced in october 2010, the economic -- [inaudible] it has climbed to 75%. with a prime minister like to congratulate the people, for that success? >> i certainly join my honorable friend and congratulating not only the people there but the people conducting the work program and conducting our welfare reforms because i think what we are seeing is poor people actually becoming able to work and, therefore, able to enter the workforce and to raise

not only the country's living standards but raise their own living standards. >> mark index. [inaudible] mr. speaker, the prime minister has got a reputed but rebalancing. this is a major blow to manufacturing in this country. other european leaders can go and help their companies get major contract. why is this premise not doing and why do we not have the contracts with the injured and -- the indian government? >> the honorable gentleman ought to think about the fact that all european leaders are actually backing the euro fight project. it's a german project, it's a spanish project but it is a british project and that's how it should be. i'm very disappointed by what has happened in india, but the euro fire is not out of the contest and we need to reengage as hard as we can to make sure that we get the best deal for

all those workers in britain make euro fighters but instead of shouting i think this is something that ought to unite parties, getting behind a great defense producers. >> in order for the constituents of mine could access the drugs and trade issues and how to under the nhs constitution, her consultant, a specialist on colleges, the secretary of health and i had to write a few letters, one will health care specials devil decide what treatments their patients get? >> i think the honorable lady raises an important point, which is simply introduction of the drugs fund under this government, 10,000 more people have been able to get cancer drugs that are so essential. let me tell you one thing that would really damage cancer treatment in this country, and that is their proposal from the party opposite to cap at 5% in the private sector involved in a hospital to one of the best cancer hospitals in the country, they would have to cut by a

quarter the services that they deliver. what a crazy left wing plan that only the honorable gentleman can come up with. >> mr. speaker, three months time just before the olympics. a truly dangerous man will be roaming the streets of london thanks to prime minister of abolishing control orders of house arrest provisions. how can the prime minister justify putting the public's right to life at risk in order to get over to the liberal democrats when they demand to abolish this? [shouting] >> the situation with him is completely unacceptable. as i said when i went to make a speech in front of the council of europe about this issue, it is not acceptable that we end up with a situation we have someone in your country that threatens to do you harm that you cannot try, you cannot detain, and you

cannot deport. that is why the government will do everything it can, working with our jordanian friends and allies to make sure he can be deported again, instead of sniping about him and the whole house ought to unite to help solve this our. >> dr. julian lewis. >> since last september, only a tiny handful of the 165 acute mental health untold inpatient beds were vacant. yet the trust concern proposes to cut those 165 beds, to 107, replacing them with something called a hospital at home more virtual word. given that i believe the statistics on which this is based are inconsistent and unreliable, will the prime minister support my call for indy pendant experts from the audit commission to look at

those figures before those beds are closed? >> i think the honorable gentleman makes an important point. of course, we're putting the extra resources into the nhs, there needs to be a clear series of beds as there are now under our plan before any facilities are changed or close. that is about making sure there is a backing for what is proposed to making sure that any such changes would improve the health of the area. very happily look at the issue he raises and make sure the department of health engage with them on that issue. >> andrew miller. >> for police authorities concluded what i shared with the chancellor just started buying cars from korea. after that, when i'm going to see some leadership from the prime minister about public procurement? >> the most important thing in terms of police procurement is the police forces get together

and procure together to cut their costs. i think we have all lost count of the times of wondering aashto wandered the police station and seeing different types of vehicle, all causing a large amount of money. what the public what is police on the streets, not money spent on unnecessary procurements. >> thank you, mr. speaker. apprentice will have seen this morning select committee report on libya. will my right honorable friend till the house with steps he's taken to ensure the you gay will be fully able to effect when all you gay nationals from conflict zones and reduce our reliance on similar aircraft speak with my honorable friend raises an important point that i think the libya evacuation and other potential evacuations in a dangerous and unstable world have brought him to is the importance of having transport aircraft in the m.o.d. and in the raf. i can announce today that because the ministry of defense's finances on better front and better manage because we found savings come will be able to purchase an additional

c-17 for the raf. this aircraft is becoming an absolutely brilliant work force for the raf in terms of bringing men and material into a war zone like afghanistan, but also evacuating civilians in times of need but isn't an important investment for the country and i'm glad to announce we can make it today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. me for civil associate myself with attributes to her majesty, the queen. >> here, here. >> yesterday the all party independence group on stocking published reports. the prime minister knows my interest in the subject, and the government concluded yesterday. will he now please meet with myself and a small group of all party members to discuss this urgent need for stocking law? >> we do take this issue very issue. i'm happy to meet with him and discuss it. i know he has had conversations with the home office. were all out to get this issue right. if there is a need for legislative changes that may well be opportunities in the

next session for that sort of legislation and i'll happily meet and talk with him about a. >> david ruffley. >> i'm proud highlight the college that is increased its number of applications from nine to 160 over the last three years. the government is increase in number of apprenticeships by 177,000 in the last year alone. does my right honorable friend agree that the cheapest like these illustrate the importance and the commitment required to give apprenticeships the focus and attention recognition that did deserve? >> i think my auto friend and on the record i think is one of the most important investments we can make in the future and helping young people is investing in apprenticeships. the number over the last year is up by a staggering 60%, 457,000 people starting apprenticeships. and an apprenticeship week i think it's important to stress what we're doing to get over the objections people are fed making sure there are more

apprenticeships more easily had by small businesses, by the payment of a simple feed, making sure we have more high level of apprenticeships that we show apprenticeships are every bit as good as having a university degree and and boulder university degree, and also cutting the bureaucracy by allowing big business is to actually run the apprenticeships themselves rather than doing it through training. all of these things make a big difference. >> why hasn't the government launched an appeal against the judgment? [inaudible] >> we are doing everything we can to get this man out of the country. the absolutely key thing to do is an agreement with jordan about the way he will be treated because the european court on human rights has made it very clear judged on the. i have to think it is the wrong judgment i regret that judgment. this guy should've been deported years ago.

but nevertheless, if we get that agreement with jordan he can be on his way. [inaudible] with the prime minister agree we need a simpler alternative for our smallest firms for dismissal rules? >> i think my honorable friend is right to raise this issue. if every small business in the country hires an additional worker that would go a long way of curing both long-term and youth unemployment at one stroke. we've got to make it easier for businesses to take people on that one of the key considerations businesses have is a difficult it is to let someone go that doesn't work out, and that's why extending to two years the amount of time you have to work of we get access to the tribunal i think can make a real difference in terms of small business employment. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

>> i raise this repeatedly and indeed of the g20.inde let me just remind her of one important fact. including people like rolls-royce and took them arounn the gulf to show our domesticefe whitman who was at it that attacked me? who was it who just doesn't stand up for apprenticeship and british jobs? itsbr labor. >> on monday mr. speaker thee free press heard what mywhat m constituents have been saying to them about proposed savings to health services n tell the prime minister that labour's frantically busy in my constituency is a distrust and despair. does he agree with me that the

right way and health care in our constituent is foundation trust-based? >> i think my honorable friend is entirely right. the whole point of the reform is to put the power in the hands of local doctors so that they make decisions on behalf of patients, and what is good for health care in the local area. and will find of the committee hospitals that were repeatedly undermined by the party opposite would get a great boost for local people and local doctors want to see them succeed. that's what our reforms are all about. [inaudible] >> now because of faulty medical, they are being filled by private clinic and by an nhs achieve. we can see the future of a privatized nhs. will the prime minister pledge, will the prime minister pledged to support those women in nhs

now and claim against the clinic later quickly dropped the health and social care bills we don't have -- [shouting] >> let me take the honorable ladies question into halves if i make it i think she is entirely right about the scandal of the implants but the government has made absolutely clear that we will offer every one of those women a free consultation and making sure that on the nhs we do everything we can to help them. it is an absolute scandal, and the private clinics that could have his operations should give the maximum pressure to undo the harm they have done. but let me just say to her about the issue of greater competition and choice within the nhs but i actually think she should listen to pass labour politicians who have said themselves that actually greater choice, greater competition, the involvement of the private sector, that can help raise standards in our nhs system and that's why we should support it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the threat to shipbuilding

raises a question mark over 1500 livelihoods, and also 70,000 jobs in the wider region supply chain. i know the premise or shares my concerns about this, but will he commit all he can to protect this? >> i think the honorable lady is right to speak up for her constituency and to speak up for shipbuilding. they have not approach the can with any proposal to rationalize the shipbuilding in the you gay but as far as i'm aware there are no decisions yet been taken by the country. what i would say, this governments me but to the royal navy is that we are building the global combat ships, where building the submarines. there is a plan for replacing him and also plans as well underway for having aircraft carriers. that is a major punch for the royal navy which i strongly support. >> thank you, mr. speaker. treasury tax rates on gas are

putting 1500 jobs at risk. cannot ask the prime minister not to be complacent about northeast jobs, but doing so that offshore development and guarantee tax relief in the budget, and speak to me about the job situation in the northeast? >> i think the honorable lady raises an excellent important point to i saw myself how vital this industry is. and, indeed, and, indeed, how much investment is taking place in the north sea. let me just reminder though that the reason we put up the tax on north sea was actually to cut petrol duty for fans up and down the country. but we will make sure that . i don't know why members are falling about unable to contain himself. i want to the prime minister's answer. prime minister. >> we will make sure there is a good tax regime for the north sea whether that is servicing

jobs in england or indeed in scotland. >> peter bone. >> mr. speaker, last wednesday they objected the laws to the reform bill. on seven occasions the commons voted, the prime minister and the deputy prime minister voted. but the children's minister, the honorable member for central refused to support the government and has spoken against the policy. now mr. speaker, on occasion i have spoken against the government that supported, but i am not a government minister. why is she still a government minister? [shouting] >> i thought -- be much we want to hear the prime minister's answer. and we won't if there's too much noise. prime minister that i thought he was going to say yes, the honorable lady is a government minister. she supports a government

policy, as all government ministers do. >> 15,000 young people going to be affected by the changing -- [inaudible] about 1500 new claimants are going to lose 4900 pounds a year. >> i think the important value with respect to employment support allows is we're saying to there are two groups. there's the support group, people who are not able to work who deserve to get that support over and above jobseeker's allowance, and for as long as you need it without any element of insisting that the second element, the work-related activity group, are people who need help to get work but will be able to work. that's why they're in that group and they're going to get tailored help and support under the work program to get them into what but i know the labour party has set its face it's all of welfare reform. i think are making a massive

mistake in doing so. >> what confidence can we have that unilateral intervention by russia will put an end to the terrible violence in syria? >> i think we have very little confidence in that. frankly, russia and china set themselves against arab opinion and world opinion and pass it would've been a strong and good u.n. resolution that i think think my right honorable friend of foreign secretary was right to push that resolution. what we now need to see, and britain will be playing a big part in this, israel engagement with the opposition groups both inside and outside syria, bring together the strongest possible international alliance for a contact group so we can coordinate our efforts with respect to getting rid of this dreadful regime, and in making sure to the e.u. and other bodies that we continue with the sanctions and pressures. the bloodshed in syria is appalling. i think the russians have to look at their consciences and realize what they have done. the rest of the world will keep

on fighting as hard as we can to give the syrian people a chance to choose their own future. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday i heard an expert, health expert who is visiting the you gay say that the nhs remains a beacon for care and effectiveness in the world. and it needs to be improved and perfected not change. will the prime minister accept that advice and abandon the health bill? >> what needs to be abandoned, that his labour's approach to the nhs in wales. let me remind him. he shakes his head. this is what's happening in wales. this is what labour are doing in wales. they have cut health spending in wales by 400 billion pounds. that is 6.5% cut. 27% of people in wales wait more than six weeks for diagnostic services. the figure for england is just 1%. as i said earlier, a third of people waiting over 18 weeks

with operation in wales. that is what you get if you get labour, no money, no reform, no good health service. >> last but not least, mr. martin evaders. >> thank you, mr. speaker. many of my constituents are among the three had 37 redundancies announced. the honorable gentleman from -- [inaudible] one possibility is the extension of the recent announced x prize over can the prime minister give some comfort to my constituents