workers tried to wield it. adequate foundations and other improper construction practices. he said safety tests were, quote -- we need an active regulator to review standards for the pipeline. we need to make sure we're not cutting corners when and if we do this. i'd rather try to prevent environmental damage by constructing this right than to have to go back in and remediate the damage and shut down the pipeline on a temporary basis. i think this amendment is sensible and i hope everybody votes for it. i'll yield the rest of my time. >> i thank the gentlewoman from colorado for her comments and yielding the balance of her time to me. this is going to be the very first time that this large of a pipeline is to be bmt, i think

right down the middle of our country. transporting diluted bitumen. it seems to me that the pipe this stuff is going to travel through should be reviewed by the agency that's responsible for the safety of what travels through the pipe. now, we said earlier that we're not leap frogging over things. you know what, yes, you are. look at the base bill. no presidential permit is required for keystone. you tell ferc they have to receive a permit within 30 days of the application, you tell them the outcome will be, you weigh other applicable requirements. if they don't act on the permit, then within 30 days of the permit it's approved.

what kind of legislation is this. if that's not leap frogging, i don't know what jumping is. there are members on this side of the aisle with you on supporting the pipeline but they, too, have reservations on how it should be done. the warning chairman emeritus the route you're taking with this leap frogging is going to end up in a mountain of litigation. i think this is sensible. this isn't meant to stop it. i'm not going to stop it. you all are hell bent to get this thing done no matter what. i'm just saying slow down a little and know whether these pipes are safe enough to carry something that can be highly detrimental. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all i know, i'm glad not every

pipeline sought to be constructed in america requires the approval of congress or finds its way here. none of them would get done. i think it's interesting the trans alaska pipeline was actually approved by congress on an expedited schedule not too dissimilar for this. that's why in part it was built in a fairly rapid time. i was just going through some of the documents, as i sat here listening to my colleague in terms of the conditions for keystone xl and keystone pipeline. these are the 57 items highlighted by our council earlier because we all want to make sure this pipeline is built to the highest standards and there are requirements that they do that, they monitor that. when you start reading through this, maybe everybody could, it talks about stealth quality control assurance, fracture control, pipe steam quality control requirements, monitoring for seam fatigue from

transportation, punk tour resistance. for instance, steel pipe must be punk tour resistant to an excavator weighing two tons with general purpose 3.5 by 0.137 inches. there's pipe coating, field coating, coating for field installation, bend quality. keystone must retain certification records, factory induction bends and factory weld bends, all must have carbon equivalents to below certain standards. pipeline design factor, a temperature control, over pressure protection control, plans and schedule. then they get into depth of cover. we have this discussion because involving the farmer keystone shall construct with soil covering a minimum of 48 inches in all areas except consolidated rock. minimum depth in consolidated

rock is 36 inches. 42 inches in all other areas. cultivated areas where it prevents 48, keystone must control additional measures and alert excavators to the pipeline. they go into additional coverage, pressure test and the schedule for that. then the scan rate, whole protection there. i'm only at 25. alarm management, we heard about leaks. there's alarm priority determinations, authorities, responsibilities, number of alarms specified, alarm management policies and procedures, league detection systems are clearly addressed here and specified very thoroughly, in collaboration, maintenance of those sorts of protection systems. main line and check valve control. specifications, cathode protection, corrosion surveys, initial close interval surveys,

coating condition, pipeline markers, patrol the right-of-way at intervals not exceeding three weeks but 26 times each calendar year for skra excavation, unstable soil, washouts, leakage, other activities or conditions affecting the safety operations of the pipeline on and on and on. so i think this is above and beyond what i believe is required in the pipeline safety law. and that is part of the final environmental impact statement which here takes up six, seven, eight, nine, probably ten of these giant binders of the work of our federal agencies. there's no environmental impact. the basic environmental impact or final environmental impact work has been done other than on this additional route through nebraska once that's chosen. that can be done then. i think it's time to be on with it.

this is about jobs in america. this is about billions in new tax receipts to our local communities, 20,000, 100,000, you pick the estimates, across the board in real jobs for real americas, blue-collar workers, trade jobs for pipe fitters, electricians and others we need in this country. canada is our best trading partner. bar none. premier of canada is in china today. china is a huge investor in oil development in canada. they are on the verge of making a decision to just go a different route and take this across over to the pacific and ride on out china. this is going to come out of canada. they are going to produce oil. the question is do we get any jobs? do wets this to flow into our

part of the world or does china? >> the time expired. i'd like to finish the debate so we can get to the next. m mr. engels recognized five minutes. >> i'm one of the people mrs. eshoo described. i tend to be sympathetic to the pipeline. i believe we have tough choices to make. they are not easy, black and white, all shades of gray. i think basically we can benefit from the pipeline but i want it done right. i don't want a kangaroo court. i don't want something preordained. i want it done right. the majority i've been in the house now and the majority can do whatever it wants. it's majority rule. i've always felt even when we were in the majority it kind of makes sense to kind of broaden the attempt to get more people involved in legislation. you can pass whatever you want on a narrow essentially party

line vote but to me it doesn't make any sense to try to ram this through. yes, it's true maybe some of the amendments are looked at in an attempt to slow things down. everybody has their own -- each person has his or her own priority. that's not true with me. i think what mrs. eshoo is saying makes sense. i'm troubled by the legislation because the state has it mr. dingell, an amendment we're going in to vote on talks about president bush's executive order, i think is fine in state. i think it's good the way it is. what troubles me about moving into ferc, i think you can make a case for it. what truly bothers me is the

mandate in the bill they have 30 days to approve it and if it doesn't approve it it becomes law anyway. what kind of amendment is that? that's absurd. either you want a real review or you don't. if you don't, what's the whole point in bringing it to ferc, telling them they can review it. but if they don't, too bad, it's going to happen anyway. that doesn't make any sense to me. the problem with nebraska that still hasn't been -- peace hasn't been put together, i would feel a lot better if that piece were in place. i would be happy to ultimately vote for something like this. it seems to me what we're doing here is we're just ramming it through. gentleman from california raises important issues. some might agree. some might not agree. i think certainly we have a real review. the whole point in government

doing this, i know some people on the other side don't like government. for me, i want government to protect environmental standards. i want to make sure the mechanisms we're set up for for public protection are there. i just don't think ramming this thing through is the right thing to do, just the way i don't think preventing this is the right thing to do. let's do the pipeline. i'm for it. i really am for it. i'll tell you why. i think we have to say yes to something. we can't keep saying no to this, no to that, no to every bit of energy. to me, i understand you have to weigh it. i think on balance the pipeline is a good thing, not the way we're doing it now. not the way we're doing it in this bill. not the way we're disregarding any modicum of review. to protect the environment,

protect american people's health and safety. this is really the wrong way to go. i'm trouble. i just want the gentlewoman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. any other members wishing to speak? if not, we'll vote on the amendment. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no! >> nos appear to have it. amendment is not agreed to. gentleman from pennsylvania a recorded vote is asked for. we'll have a recorded vote. >> i have an amendment. >> say the title of the amendment. >> amendment offered by mr. doyle of pennsylvania to the amendment in the nature of the substitute. >> amendment considered as read, staff will circulate the tenth of the amendment and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. chairman despite all the controversy surrounding this pipeline, i think this is a good opportunity for us to examine some of the claims that the applicant for keystone xl pipeline is made. let me just say at the very beginning i support building this pipeline in a way that protects the environment and creates american jobs. when i first started reading about 800,000 tons of steel to be used in the keystone xl pipeline like a lot of people from my neck of the woods, i was pretty excited about the prospect for u.s. manufacturers, especially steel manufacturers having u.s. steel headquartered in my district and being part of the steel caucus. i have to admit, i was a little confused when i called up my friends at u.s. steel, one of the largest u.s. steel manufacturers and asked them how much of that 800,000 tons of steel in the keystone pipeline were they getting.

they told me they were getting zero, u.s. steel didn't have a single order for the keystone pipeline. i was puzzled. i had talked to my friends at the steelworkers union to find out why they aren't more supportive of this project because of all the steel involved. i found out you're not going to see any steelworkers on this job either. that confused me. i thought there must be a mistake. trans canada touting 75% of the steel in this project in america, either canada or the united states. so i tried to reach out to trans canada and ask them clarifying information. i know yesterday in opening statements my good friend tim murphy, we sit on the steel caucus together was touting the wonderful effects of jobs created in our country in the steel industry. i share that concern with tim. we work very hard to help u.s. steel manufacturers.

i reached out to the permit applicant trans canada and several other sources to try to get some clarifying information on where 75% of the steel used in the keystone pipeline domestically sourced from north america would be. unfortunately the best answer i could get seems to be there's a single pipe manufacturer in little rock, arkansas, providing most of the steel for this pipeline. the trouble with that is the manufacturer doesn't actually use u.s. or north american steel to make their pipe. in fact, the little rock plant very clearly told me they make their pipe out of foreign steel. in fact, they have already imported 148 miles of ready made pipe from india. so that's sitting on their block right now. the rest of the steel from which they will make pipe is sitting there in slab in the rock comes from foreign sources. not the united states, not

canada. they take those slabs and heat them up and bend them and make pipe out of them. so they are going to do the finishing there. but the actual manufactured steel, i don't believe there to be one ounce of u.s. or canadian steel in this entire pipeline. i'm simply asking for a little bit of truth in advertising here. it's been my frustration through this whole debate we hear claims about the pipeline. i just want to be honest with the american people. my amendment just says this, that trans canada has told us they have made every effort to source as much steel from north american mills as they can. i'm simply asking them to certify that claim. through my amateur investigation, i don't believe there's a lick of u.s. or canada steel in this canada pipeline but i would love to be approved i don't think. if the folks can certify at trans canada that 75% of this steel is sourced in the united

states or canada, then i think it's full steam ahead. i think there's many other members of this committee that would like to know the same thing as well. finally, let me say do we have companies in the united states that make pipe? i know of four u.s. pipe mills that make 36 inch indictment pipe used on this pipeline. one in baton rouge, louisiana, ones in panama city, florida, one is in birmingham, alabama, one in mobile, alabama. guess what, they all use u.s. steel in the pipes they make. i'm just curious why none of these companies had a shot at some of this steel in the keystone pipeline. my amendment very simply says let's certify this 75% claim or stop making claims you can't back up with facts. with that i yield back my team. >> gentleman yields back. members on this side wishing to

speak? gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do think it's important to note when we're talking about the jobs that would be created by keystone, 25,000 american jobs we're fighting for in the legislation by mr. terry, if you look at this amendment, i'm not sure if the gentleman was aware all the pipe was already purchased but under that amendment they wouldn't be able to go forward with keystone because they already bought the steel. in fact, as we were told, half the steel for the project was sourced from a u.s.-based mill in little rock, arkansas. in fact, we've already heard from our colleagues in arkansas that said they are laying off people right now in arkansas because the president refuses to permit keystone. we're losing jobs in america at that arkansas mill that manufactures that mill because the federal government won't approve the pipeline. i think it gets to the heart of

this issue. what we're talking about here is whether or not to go forward with the project. i know there's going to be every attempt to try to throw up a roadblock here and a roadblock here to stop keystone from happening. each time our friends on the other side are going to say, look, want the pipeline, but got to put this condition in. i know we tried took build a steel mill in south louisiana that's finally moving forward. in fact, the biggest impediment to the building of the steel mill was federal redulation. it's a new mila lot has been written about it. for years they wanted to build it in america. as cap and trade started coming through, they started building in brazil. look, we want to build in america but crazy regulations are blocking us from creating american jobs. ultimately they went forward after a couple of years of jobs. there's not enough studies. we've seen studies done, environmental studies done. this project was done on the books of the secretary of state

going back to 2008. state department had this request for keystone back to 2008. they have been studying it. hillary clinton back in 2010 said we ought to move forward with it. in 2011 last year state department issued a statement saying they don't see any problems with keystone. we fought and won world war i in less time than the federal government has been studying keystone. we can keep studying it, say i'm for the keystone pipeline but i just want to study it some more. in the meantime china is saying they want it. canada wants to send it to america. canada wants to send the jobs to america. but america right now through these radical policies is saying no, america doesn't want the jobs that go to china. so it's come to our laps. congress can sit back and do nothing about it. but we've taken the initiative and said we want to create jobs, fight for american jobs.

unfortunately the only way we can to that is through an act of congress of the president made it clear he's not going to do it. kicked it off after the election, environmentalists threatened his re-election. everybody wants the keystone pipeline they just don't want it. amendments come up that whether well intentioned or not will kill the deal. we can keep pushing this off. fortunately the author of the amendment, author of the bill, chairman of the committee, all us co-sponsored it has said these jobs are worth fighting for. these are 20,000 american jobs that are either going to happen or not happen depending if we pass legislation. if we don't pass the legislation, there are no jobs. i know the president's narrative is he wants to campaign against a do nothing congress, do anything to keep the focus away from his policy. if congress actually does something, congress passes a jobs bill. this keystone bill. it will create 20,000 jobs. it's unfortunate the president

would rather the narrative that congress is doing nothing. congress can block this, find excuses, wait for more studies. we can study and study it. meantime china is going to get the oil and the job. we've come to a point we've got to say we either want it or not. you're going to say i want it, i want the president to decide it. the president made that decision. the president said he doesn't want it at least before the election, which means we won't get it. after the election it's going to china. so the president decided what he wants. the question we've got to answer, are we willing to fight for those american jobs any way even if the president doesn't want them. he made it clear and the stakes clear, a canadian prime minister expressed how offended he was when the president rejected keystone. we know this steel has been purchased. it's a fact. we know as much as they could

get from america they did, some from canada, arkansas. are we going to fight for jobs and pass the bill or games played to delay this, run the clock out and let china get the jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlewoman. >> i yield my time back to mr. doyle. >> i want to make a couple of comments based on what mr. scalise is saying. the steel is not being manufactured in little rock, arkansas. there is no steel being manufactured there. they are taking steel that's already been manufactured in a foreign country, heating it up, bending it and welding the seams. that's what's going on in little rock arkansas. there are 2 to 300 jobs. that was opened in 2009 when the company successful in getting the contract got the contract.

they wanted to source the plant in the united states to take the proekt product and bend the pipe. that's how long that company -- it's run by a fine gentleman from pittsburgh whose parents live in my district. i know a little bit about what's going on down there. look, you can say everything you want to say. for me it's simple. i know you're not going to vote for this amendment. what bothers me about this whole debate is how somebody is telling the american people things that just aren't true. i'm not -- we get our information from the people we ask to get our information from. it took me a long time to get a straight answer from the permit -- actually i never did get a straight answer on exactly where the 75% is. i think one or two things should happen. they should either stop saying this, stop telling the american people or creating this illusion that there's all this u.s. manufacturing going on in steel

when not a single ounce of that steel is made in this country. they have every right to use foreign steel. i just want to say that. this is a private project and they can buy their steel anywhere they want to buy it. that is their right. i'm not being critical of that. i'm sure the company providing the steel is a fine company. okay? but don't sit here and proceed smoke up our you know what by telling us that 75% of this product is being sourced in the united states or north america when that is simply not true. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes i would. >> he knows i'm sympathetic with the steel mills in my district, u.s. steel is located there. we should get him the answer. our staff notes that 50% of keystone steel originated from united states and second largest source was canada. so if that's not true, we should get your answer. i would ask to do that. >> thank you.

let me replay claim my time andi believe you'll find the steel in canada was imported from russia and the steel in this country has been imported from india. >> if the gentleman -- >> if i'm wrong, prove me wrong. >> if the gentleman would yield, i'd be happy -- it's important to know. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no. >> if i could just continue. >> i'll yield. >> devotion to steelworkers, which they are not as friendly with me, even though i work on it. remember the plumbers and pipe fitters afl-cio supports this. >> reclaiming my time, i support this. >> i got you. >> i just don't like being bs. >> thank you for pointing out the bs in plain english.

this is bad marketing, poor marketing. how do the american people win under this? here is another chink in the armor of the leap frog bill. >> i yield back. >> all right. >> yield the time. are there other members wishing for time? i would note that a series of votes has now started on the house floor. so i'd like -- we've got six votes in essence here so we'll have to come back after the votes. let's finish the debate. immediately following the sequence of the votes, i will leave the house floor when the clock hits zero and walk slowly back and we will start the votes at that point, once we have a quorum here. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. doyle, i want to work with you to make sure as we go forward we are encouraging trans canada or their contractees who

actually developed the pipe to be purchasing as much american steel as possible. i share in your goal there. the problem about the amendment as it's immediately before us is that most of the pipe has already been purchased. adopting this basically says you i don't think that's very practical. there will be off shoots. we've had several hearings over this since really last spring. the u.s.-made steel portion of it didn't come up at all until the very last hearing. i was unaware trans canada was making any assertions like that. we have their excuse that, you know, they contract these companies, and all these companies that fabricate the steel then are 74% of them are north american. i think we're kind of splitting hairs here, but let's work on

getting more of the steel, what little left is necessary to complete this as well as the off shoots and see if we can't get them to make sure that's u.s.-made steel. i would yield to the gentleman from louisiana dr. cassidy and then to doctor murphy. >> very shortly. i also agree, mr. doyle, if we're being misled, we should know that. i did speak to the pipe conference in baton rouge which you referenced, they said 36% of the pipe stockpiled is not used in the project they will lose the market. they will lay people off. there is a supply chain aspect to this we cannot ignore. >> reclaiming my time and yield to the -- i need to yield to the other