do you think is something that congress should be doing? what is your re5:00 to action t? if you represent a district like a state like alabama or texas, you're likely to be looking for projects that are close to your backyard. what do you think, bonnie? >> caller: yes. can you hear me? >> we can. >> caller: okay. i think they're all crooks. they dictate and everything for this. money from the taxpayers. and i think obama is the biggest crook of all. and eric holder is another biggest crook of all. and the reason young people can't find a job is because they can't pass a drug test. my son is 55 years old.

they could not pass the drug test. and he got the job. and i'd like to keep obama off the tv for a while. i'm so tired of listening to his big mouth. >> bonnie, let's focus on earmarks. do you have a comment on that? >> caller: yes. if they would use the good things but they use them for just the things like the snail crossings and crab crossings and everything else. >> members of congress in "the washington post" defending earmarks. they say they are worth while projects, projects that their constituents have asked them to get. let's hear from misty from austin, texas. hi there. >> caller: hi. i hope you're having a good morning. i think this is ridiculous. i because in austin and i know

for the last at least ten years they've been trying to rebeautify the eastern side. and one of the whole things is one criminal life. they arrest people who are sitting on the street or loiterring. and then i wonder how many projects have been throughout in through our congress people who have been sitting up there for years? i think we need a push for reform. make it known like the votesmart.org so we can easily find where these people are putting money. still, too, i think we need it for richardsons on how long they can sit in for the term and how many times they can go for re-election. >> let's look at a comment coming to us from c-span junky on twitter. if congress doesn't earmark, the administration gets to earmark and make decisions on how to

spepd, right? let's look at the break bout bos in "washington post." members of congress, earmarks sent home and what it means for the bottom line for taxpayers as well as for their local districts. this, of course, is the leader of the senate democrats. he is from nevada. $21.5 million. in 2004 rein and 2005, he secur million to secure a bridge over the colorado river. nevada with arizona, rezoned the undeveloped land in bull head city. ousl reported by "los angeles times." a spokesman says it has been stated before senator reid supports the bridge and has absolutely nothing to do with property he owns and that the based on the fact that a project is good for southern nevada and nothing else. let's go to georgia. hi, merlin. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i'd like to know how

we got money going moo their districts. they should really be illegal. i think congress should do something about this. >> well now, if you're a member of congress brought home money for a project in your neck of the woods, would you be upset by that? >> yes. yes, i would. very upset. >> well here's a breakout here. republican of georgia, house member and co-sponsored 26 hill million in earmarks in 2008. at last in this picture he owns a cottage 900 feet from the beach. it's absurd to suggest this benef benefits me." ed is on our republican line. ed, that is good timing. we were just talking about a project in your neighborhood. >> caller: yes, hi. i think nothing scream the need for term limits more than this

story. i think the fed should be returned to being lekted by state legislature as was originally in the constitution. i think that will cut down the money and politics. if i may, bull head city is a gambling town. they talk about bringing in solar plants. they talk about bringing in a water park and i don't think it's going to happen because all those things will increase the demand for labor which will bring up wages because the price of labor follows the demand for labor. >> ed, tell us about this project that harry reid helped usher earmarks for.

we mentioned that there was ovea bridge. has it made a difference in the town? >> caller: well, there is one bridge now. it used to be a cross being bridge. it's a dam. they closed that up after the 9/11 scare. the other brinl will be near a parking -- i mean a shopping mall or a city park. i don't know if they get enough traffic or a matter of convenience. i think it's convenience. but there is really not a lot of development here. >> okay. darrell writes on twitter, earmarks will be fine if the process weren't so shadowy and based on seniority. ross is in hammond, louisiana. democrats line. good morning. >> caller: good morning.

>> go ahead, sir. you're on the program. >> caller: yes, well, i'm a frequent viewer of your program. i enjoy the program. my thing is any time we have politicians and they're just saying that it's going to benefit them, it's like they're in it for themselves. i know we have politicians out there for the general public. it seems the only time they want to do something, they're going to have some benefit from it. that is my comment. i think we need to really look at them all and re-evaluate them and see if we can do something about sending them home. >> we mentioned john olver from massachusetts and how he spent nearly $100 million in earmarks for an array of projects in western massachusetts which he represents. he goes on to explain the rules. i says he doesn't have to disclose the property on annual financial reports because he's not required to under house

rules. the proximity of his property to a project also is not disclosed on a certification he filed at the house stating that neither he nor his wife have a financial stake in the earmarks. when asked why he didn't choose to include that information on his certification even though he's not technically required to do so, olver said maybe you should have disclosed that. i don't know. i try to live my life by the rules as they are set n kentucky, carol harold rogers, republican, has been called the "prinsz of pork" for his us is sec in guiding federal money to his appalachian home district. the lo member and current chairman of the house appropriations kmd helped secure about $250 million from 2008-2010. the country, he said, needs to turn back from the edge of fiscal ruin. but before that moratorium, the earmarks for the revitalization of downtown summerset which his hometown. the project continues today. more thanned tdz 7 million in

rogers' earmarks have gone toward that project. let's go to spring hill, florida. chris on our independent line. chris, we're talking about this legal act by congress. they can -- members can earmark money, send it home to their districts even if they will benefit from it personally whether it's financially or it could be own property near the earmarked property. what do you think about sth. >> it's their district. if they live in their district, i think they should. they probably will benefit by it. let me just explain to people. i can't believe i have to explain this to people. look, when you elect somebody to represent your district, they are going up to fight for you and your district. let the other 534 member fight for their own districts. that's how it works. the primary goal is to bring that thing to their district. that's -- i mean i can't believe it surprises anybody or they think there is some kind of sinister thing about this.

you need full disclosure. >> we're taking you back next to the house energy and commerce committee. they are marking up a bill that was designed to force approval of the keystone xl pipeline and they'll grant a decision to the federal energy and regulatory commission. that is fred upton, chairman of the committee. live coverage resuming here on c-span3. >> yeah. and the rest now will proceed. and so what i'd like to do, i'm still told that we're expecting votes about 1:30, 1:40. so what i'd like to do, i know the gentle lady from california has an amendment. and the gentleman from pennsylvania has an amendment. so though this will have to wait until mr. waxmane can roll aud together. but if not, we will start with the gentledy california's amendment go from

there. and the gentle ladyhe amendment. we'll ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read. the staff will distribute the amendment. and the gentle lady is recognized in support of her amendment. >> thank you. [ no audio ] all right. working now? there it is. we were worried about the two-hour rule earlier today. but we're well beyond that. thank you for recognizing, mr. chairman, and i want to raise a subject that we worked on and i want to thank you for it. the pipeline safety bill last year. pipeline safety is not anything that should -- a subject that

should be taken lightly. i don't think anyone here does. i know that i don't. you're all aware. in the news and in september of 2010 when there was a natural gas explosion and san bruno, california which is just north of where i live, where eight people were killed. dozens were injured. and 38 home were destroyed. we know that the federal government has been regulating pipelines since 1968. but we're still seeing explosions in the country similar to san bruno, california. so i think it's dangerous to move forward with the oil pipeline proposal which we have little to no experience regulating before we have the proper safety knowledge and procedures in place. now june 16th of last year the

administrator of finta testified that the agencies specifically heads up the agency and specifically designed for researching and administering pipeline safety had not done a study analyzing the risks associated with transporting polluted sediment. last year thet wa signed into as i said, i worked with chairman upton to include language which requires him to complete the comprehensive review of the pipeline regulations to determine whether the regulations are sufficient to insure the safety of pipelines used for the transportation of polluted sediment. so what my amendment today requires is that ferc review the results of the study before issuing a per it in.

that's really what the heart of the amendment is for the keystone xl pipeline. under the amendment, construction of the pipeline could begin but not until we know the standards that are in place from the same transportation and pollute the. i think it is important to the safety of people which i blamed earlier. and i think the approach makes sense. this is far less costly to build pipelines correctly than it is to try to fix and replace the lines that are already built and i think another very important consideration is the following. that is the recent oil spill could have occurred particularly the spills from trans canada's keystone pipeline which have linked 21,000 gallons of crude in north dakota are a warning to all of us. we need to get this right.

so for these reasons, mr. chairman, i offer my amendments and ask my colleagues to support it. i yield back. >> you yielded back? >> yes. >> are there other members wishing to speak on the amendment? i supported her amendment. we did a study as part of the pipeline safety deal. if you know that study is not supposed to be done. i don't -- until mid 2013, july of 2013.

so i note that oil sand, crude has been transported in pipelines for decades. though the supported the study, i'm anxious to see what that study is and made a promise to the gentle lady that if i was still chair at that point, that we would take that study up under review to see if we needed to address legislation down the road at that point. i do think that this amendment would delay permitting of this pipeline knowing that we've used pipelines to transport this oil sand for some time. >> mr. chairman? >> let me yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be real brief also. when i visited the oil sands,

where they mine and then they boil that oil off the sand. and then they put it in pipeline, there is a 250 mile pipeline from ft. murray down to edmonton that is doing this as the chairman says for decades. i think they're concerned about the pipeline stations and those issues have been resolved and rectified and remediated. we don't live if a perfect world. you know, if there is problems, then move forward. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> i yield back. >> yield to the gentle lady from california. >> i want to comment on your comment, mr. chairman. that was the period of time that you mentioned is the maximum

allowed for a study. that is not the earliest date. so it kind of undermines what you said. i know you don't support the amendment. but it seems to me that we are again a -- as i mentioned earlier, i think we're on a slippery slope. we pass laws, we work together, we put thing onz the books for the benefit of the american people and then what do we do? come along today and we leapfrog over what the work that we've done. so it is -- it can be done in the shorter period of time. that is the maximum and i appreciate you yielding. >> i appreciate the clarification and will reiterate my pledge that if in fact they come back sooner, next month, whatever, if they have some serious issue that they would like to raise with us, i look forward to working with the gentle lady to address it. i yield back my time. is there further discussion on this amendment?

it was my time before. mr. waxman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i understand the amendment that is before us is to ask that there be a study about the safety transporting tar sands, sludge that commonly diluted or forced through this particular pipeline. the government agencies involved had never done this bringment i think it's reasonable to request it and to understand what everyone is undertaking additional risks. i don't think we're talking about a huge delay in time. i strongly support the amendment. i'd be happy to yield to the gentle lady if she needs more time. >> no, i appreciate it. i think that in the haste to somehow jam this thing through that we're really overlooking some very serious things. to those that are totally committed to the pipeline being

built, i think you undermine your case by leapfrogging over very important by leap frogging very important things. i mean that sincerely, at the end of the day people hold their own views on these thins. i think this is an undermining process. i don't feel a good feeling about this. i think it's going to come back to haunt us. >> i'm going take back my time and point out the study is going to be done it seems policy, we owe to everyone along the pipeline to make sure adequate safety standards are in place. if we don't support this, it's consistent with the home bill before us. don't get the facts, just make the decision.

make sure the xl pipeline can go. we don't want to know what the route is going to be. we don't want to know if it's safe, we want to move forward. if you find out afterwards, there are safety problems we didn't know about and we didn't care enough to hold off at least to get that information. so i strongly support the amendment. >> before i yield to the gentleman from kentucky, if a recorded vote is asked we will roll it with the two previously ordered, mr. doyle's amendment. at that point i understand there's no further amendments and we will have all the votes in sequence. with that i'll yield to the gentleman five minutes from kentucky mr. whitfield. >> it's my understanding the section 16 study is to review

the add adequacy of existing regulations. those regulations apply to any pipeline out there. it seems to me if this touchdown comes out and determines that the regulations are not adequate that congress would then take action to make sure the inadequacy is met, and it would not only be applicable to keystone but any other pipeline. the fact we not support this amendment would not mean as mr. upton said when the study comes out if we need to do additional things we certainly can do it. i'd like to yield the balance of my time. >> i appreciate the gentleman from kentucky for yielding. it seems the amendment would require the study not due for 18 months. if it was going to make any sense, it would require that you stop, cease and desist any

transportation of oil in the keystone pipeline. my understanding is some 700,000 barrels of day are transported through that line right now. it's the same product, is it not? if someone can explain to me it's a different product, please do. if it's the exact same product and we're transporting it through the keystone pipeline, this keystone xl allows for more, maybe 60% more transportation of the very same product through the very same type peep line that runs a little bit different route, goes to more refinery sites in the united states. helps us increase domestic production which we talk about over and over and over again. if this amendment were approved, and if you took it to its conclusion that you would just

literally shut down the transportation of the crude to our sand oil through the existing keystone pipeline. with that i'll yield to mr. terry for his expertise, the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you, mr. whitfield for yielding your time for the record. this is really, i believe, a red herring issue used as an excuse to kill the bypass line. that's the way the environmentalists have presented it, nlrdc. two reasons i think this is a red herring issue. number one, already stated but true. in fact, we discussed it at the hearing about how long that heavy crude with benjamin has been transported through pipelines. it's been decades. so the a stated that, was asked then if

you've done a study. you've done a study on something going on for 20, 30, 40 years, maybe even longer. if you wanted one, that's fine. let's go ahead with one. they already know the safety and soundness of heavy crude through pipeline using benjamin. so number two, this is interesting we keep talking about this leap frogging, like we're jumping over the environmental study. in fact, i can't jump that high. two feet of environmental impact for this route that they signed off on, had their input in, because of their experience with heavy crude and bitumen made some recommendations. here not just from them but

others were 57 additional qu recommendations that are part of the final environmental impacts. so the work has been done. there's no jumping over. all we're saying is this is the exact stuff, environmental study, all the extra conditions that were put on him. the 11 jurisdictions that signed off as the final. we're going to allow her to use the same materials the president had available and use bogus nebraska argument to kill the pipeline. there's no jumping over. we're letting them use the recommendation. i'll yield back the rest of my time. >> time is expired. are there other members wishing

to speak? gentle lady from colorado. >> i've been listening with interest to the debate today. -of- crazy view of things like this. i think we should try to get pr shouldn't make shortcuts on making sure they are done in a safe way. i know that's a crazy view but my view, that we really need to make sure we cross all the ts and do the the is so we don't have collateral and environmental damage when we do this. that's why i support the amendment because i don't think we should really proceed with the pipeline because pipeline hazardous material safety administration hasn't reviewed its regulations to make sure they are sufficient for pipelines transporting tar sands oil. the approve the keystone xl pipeline. trans canada has repeatedly assured supporters and congress

we shouldn't worry about the pipeline carrying tar sands sludge through middle america and the aquifer because it will be ultrasafe, ultrastate-of-the-art. the problem is we've heard these assurances before. in 2008 trans canada received approval to construct and operate the first keystone pipeline which also transports tar sands oil. this pipeline began operation in june 2010. we were told this would be state-of-the-art using the very latest safety technologies and oil spills were expected to occur only once every seven years. what happened was during the first year and a half of operations, the first keystone pipeline had 14 spills totalling 23,000 gallons of oil. the largest one of those is when 20,000 gallons of oil erupted from the pipeline in north dakota. it was a 60 foot geyser of oil.

amazingly it was not reported by trans canada but a local farmer. in response to this spill and others on june 3rd, 2011, the pipeline safety agency issued a corrective action order temporarily shutting down the original keystone pipeline. the agency based this finding on -- based this action on a finding that the continued operation of the pipeline without corrective action would be hazardous to life, property, and the environment. since restarting operations, the keystone pipeline has now experienced another spill of 420 gallons in severance, kansas. we had a whistleblower who worked as a safety inspector during the construction of the original pipeline come forward with information that alleged serious deficiencies relating to the construction of the keystone pipeline including