conferring and we have come to an agreement that we will continue in our absence as we both go to the conference on the tax extender bill. however, we have also concurred that we will not have recorded votes before we come back. which would be somewhere between -- somewhere probably in the neighborhood of about 12:15 if, in fact, we finish at noon. so at this point, i will recognize the gentleman from massachusetts to call up his amendment, mr. marky. >> the clerk will report the title of the bill. >> amendment hr-3548 offered by mr. marky of massachusetts. >> and the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment and staff will circulate the amendment. >> 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 or the oil spills that could foul our drinking water, there is no dispute that the environmental consequences attached to transcanada pipeline will be grave. but we've been told repeated tla it is worth it. we've been told that pipeline will lower gas prices even though transcanada projects would rise because it can charge more for keystone oil in the gulf than it does in the midwest. we've been told it will create tens of thousands of new jobs even though the number of jobs has been grossly inflated and only about 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will be created. in an egregious play on american patriotism and american fears, we have also been told that oil

coming from this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly middle eastern or latin american nations. when you look at the iranians, i think had illustrates how critical it is that supply for the united states be north american. 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 fuels will stay in this country. this is because many of the refineries where the keystone crude will be sent plan to reexport the refined fuels. for example, valero states they plan to refine the canadian crude at the same facility it is

building in part arthur. doing so leverages the export logistics and says that growing global diesel demand is an export opportunity for u.s. refineries. motiva, 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, two canadian companies, and a multinational venture based in the netherlands. and it is not just a regular money making export opportunity that many of these companies are seeking. port arthur, texas, is a foreign trade zone. so when these refineries reexport the diesel and other fuels, they are maging using keystone oil they won't even have to pay united states taxes.

hear that again. they will not have to pay united states taxes. left anyone think that trans america -- transcanada, rather, isn't in the reexport business. in december when i asked the president of transcanada whether he would agree to insure that the oil and refined fuels stay here in this country instead of reexporting them he said, no. sitting right at that table. so that's the plan in this republican bill. sneak the pipeline into the country, refine the oil and then sneak the diesel fuel right back out of the country. yesterday the gentleman from nebraska said that tar sands oil could replace a million and a half or two mill dwrn baion bar oil a day. even if the keystone xl pipeline was going to transport more than 630,000 barrels of tar sands oil each day, the doe estimates it

will transport the idea that all of the keystone oil will stay in this country under this bill is just a fantasy. make no mistake. this bill is not about energy security. it is not about jobs. it is about oil company properties, plain and simple. this bill just turns the united states into a middleman in a multinational oil deal between canada, south america, europe, and china. the republican slogan last year was drill here, drill now, pay less. now we're letting canada drill there, ship here, and reexport there. all so that we in the united states will have to pay more both in term of money at the gas pump and costs to the environment. my amendment insures that if this pipeline is legislated the oil and any fuels made using it will stay here to benefit americans, here who will pay

less here. my amendment allows the president to waive this requirement only if it can be shown that an export of the oil of fuels won't increase our dependence on oil or fuels that we buy from hostile nations. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> thank you. >> who seeks recognition? the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like my map better than my friend mr. marky's map. just because it shows all the pipelines that we have currently in this country. i also like to just, i said this numerous times on this committee, the keystone pipeline ends in right outside my district. and my refinery, the con he could phillips refinery did a $2 billion expansion during the lowest economic times. why? so they can ship it to -- down south, so they can put oint ships. no, to refine it. there's a better return on investment for refining a

product and selling a product than just moving the bulk commodity product as it is. let's just take my friend's debate for what it was. so what if the crude oil goes on the world market? so what? don't we understand supply and demand? don't we understand kmad commodity products? the more supply of a commodity product on the market, the lower price, the demand stays the same. it's very simple. my friend's map had why would we ship crude oil down to the gulf coast and then ship it to china? where is harper today? harper is in china. why? because he's trying o cut the deal to move the pipeline west versus south. wouldn't that be a better plan for the chinese? and we know their great

environmental record, the chinese. and we know the great record of moving crude oil across the seas. i would still say a pipeline is the most secure, the safest, environmental sound and it's proven by the hundreds of thousands of miles of product that we ship by pipeline every day. whether it's crude oil, whether it's natural gas, bl itwhether refined product. i challenge you, go visit a refinery. look at the tanker trucks that are rolling in there. you know, there's none. because they're all coming in by pipeline and it's all going out by pipeline. now again, the benefits, i would just also encourage people to look at the bloomberg article from today, february 6th. america's gaining energy independence. which is what we all talk about in this committee all the time. wouldn't it great to get to energy independence? and part of this whole article it talks up mentions stepped up

oil output and restrained consumption will less endemands for imports cutting the nation's trade deficit and buttressing the dollar. isn't that a good thing? i would say that's a good thing. and that's from currently chief energy economist at deutsche bank ag in washington. another point that is raised in this article is that, you know, the keystone pipeline is going to help us bring our crude oil products from the fields in north dakota instead of trucking it, we can exploit the fields in north carolina using the keystone xl pipeline. north dakota, the center of the so-called tight oil transformation is now the fourth largest oil producing state behind texas, alaska, and california. california is a big oil producing state. u.s. consumers would still be

susceptible to surges and global oil prices, we would end up sending some of that cash to north dakota rather than to saudi arabia. and i think that is what this issue is all about. so don't be confused about the debate of the world oil commodity product. if you accept my friend's premise, more supply for commodity products, the demand stays the same, the price is lower. that's true for crude oil. that's true for corn. that's true for beans. that's true for pork. that's true for any commodity product. you increase the supply, demand stays the same, price goes down. so even if you accept his premise, oil going on the world market is good thing. more oil going on the world market is a good thing. i would argue that the better thing would be for our

refineries to take the crude oil and then refine it into the various products jet fuel, diesel fuel, gasoline, asphalt, all those thing thez break the bare he of crude oil down into and that's better for our country at lower prices to ship to us. so please reject my colleague's amendment and i yield back my time. >> the gentleman's time expired. the gentle lady from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to yield my time to mr. marky. >> i thank you. >> i wish you would have told me that before i yielded. >> i thank the gentle lady very much. so here's the problem. the gentleman from illinois is saying that we should just get over it. that this oil pipeline is going to come down from alberta, go right through the middle of our country, and just going to then

go out into the rest of the world and th will be great. that will be great because the price of oil will go down globally. and we should be very happy for that. and somehow or another american consumers will benefit even though the export strategy will be to send that oil to china or to send it to argentina or to send it to europe. and somehow or another, our consumers will be benefited by that. because that's law of supply and demand. the problem is, we're kind of late in the game on this to kind of reach this point of realization. we played under opec's laws of supplies and demand. and their law is -- and here's what they say to us. we supply the oil, opec. you pay what we demand. any time the price goes down too low, we meet in vienna. we lower the price. we lower the total supply of oil

and you guys just pump it up. and the price will just go higher and higher. so the story is now across the country is saying that by memorial day the price of gasoline could be $4, $5 some parts of countriment so here's a great opportunity for us. the prime minister of china is the prime minister of canada is saying on the one hand that this will be great that our oil would be north american oil here in the united states. but on the other hand, when we ask transcanada will you agree that the oil stays in the united states they go, oh, no. no. no. no. no. and then you read all the other things that they're saying. and it's pretty clear that weju 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. now what's the problem with that?

well, the problem is that we don't control the price of oil with such a small amount of oil. let's say it's a million or two million barrels a day going out into the global market. but for the united states, it would be a lot of additional oil just for our market. now why is that important? well, here's a big fact for you. last year for the first time in 62 years, the united states was a net xdo you understand that? in 2011 we were a net exporter of oil products. you want to hear something? you want to hear a second issue? >> will the gentleman yield? >> just let me finish. our number one export last year was oil products. so i think that's infuriating ordinary people who are looking at $4 and $5 a gallon gasoline. that this policy of exporting oil and increasing the amount

with this bill that is passing today will absolutely infuriate the american driver. in fact, america has now experted 100 million barrels of oil over the last seven months. and this bill would just make us a conduit to make it possible to export even more oil as the price of gasoline of home heating oil is skyrocketing inside of our country. so whatever you do, let's just play it straight about the straits of harmuz. let's just make it clear that without my amendment that says the oil stays here that this pipeline won't do a single thing to break our dependence upon imported oil from the middle east because you're not giving us this guarantee and canada won't give us this guarantee. so prime minister harper, here's the strategy. they will fly to china to talk

to china about you would like our oil? or they will come to the united states and say, can you build a pipeline through the united states? so we can send the oil to china and to south america. it's going to china. it's going to south america. it's going to europe under any circumstances unless you pass my amendment to keep it here. that's the canadian plan. don't you understand? that's their plan. and if i cape from louisiana or texas, i'd going along with opposition to my amendment. by the way, if you come from louisiana or texas, vote against this amendment. i'm telling you this right now. vote against the marky amendment. i give you this warning. tex texas, oklahoma, louisiana, vote no. if you come from any other part of the united states, i do noent he what you're thinking. this oil is not going to the united states. it's going to other countries in the world. >> the gentleman's time has expired. before i recognize you, i'm going to take the chair's prerogative and ask my friend from massachusetts a question.

when we all know you were an entrepreneur as a young man and you were selling ice cream at red sox fenway park. isn't that correct? >> this is true. >> did you only sell ice cream to people that said i will eat i right in front of you right now? or did you let them do whatever they want to with the ice cream? >> no. i actually -- >> did you have an eat in my presence ice cream? >> i had an eat in the united states rule. no. you had to eat it within red sox nation. >> did he sell it to yafrpg yes fans is wh -- yankee fans? >> i just wanted to know. did he have restrictions on who he sold it to? >> let me say this. there was no world ice cream cartel. i was afraid of mr. softy. i was afraid of some of the other competitors. but they were right there. they were american. and i knew that --

>> i'm going to recognize. >> my price is low if i was going to unload my ice cream. >> i'm going to recognize one of the folks from louisiana -- that you pointed out, mr. solis. >> thank you. 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 oil stadium on sunday. you know, i think there's a confusion being presented here between oil and refined oil. i think that gets to the heart of the flaw of this amendment. if you read this amendment by my colleague from massachusetts, you could really call this the ship more jobs to china amendment. because under this amendment, no american company would be able to manufacture products and right now there are over 6,000 products that are manufactured using oil biproducts.

and we have a chart here of some of the 6,000 products that are manufactured using oil. in this list, you got tires, tar tires, bicycle tires, motorcycle helmets, dash boards for cars, mops, roofing equipment, water pipes, can't manufacture water pipes, clothes. no clothes would be able to be manufactured in america because of this amendment. heart valves. they turnly use petroleum biproducings to make heart valves. toothbrushes, football helmets, even crayons, lifejackets, pa a parachute. it would are to say made in china now. antihistamines. there are a lot of products that

are made that help save lives. just basic aspirin. they use petroleum. one of the by products. no aspirin would be allowed to be manufactured in america. purses, deodorant, panty hose, tool boxes. you can't go to work with a tool box if it's made in america because it contains a by product of petroleum that might have been refined and manufactured in america. you can find it in india, but not if it was meat in america and that company ships to other countries. that makes american jobs. they would no longer be allowed because you wouldn't be able to make it in america if you shipped it to any other country as well. you can only sell it in america, but exports are no longer allowed under this amend am.

you shut the ports down because you can't export products anymore. shoes, football, eyeglasses, bandages can no longer be made in america if they are exported. under the amendment, it has this exception. the president may provide for waivers. let's see what kind of dictatorial power that would give to the president of the united states and how he handled waivers in the past. we had a hearing on the scandal of the obama care waivers. 1400 organizations went to the white house behind closed doors and got a waiver from the president. i have been going through my district and every small business i asked who had a waiver from obama care? i have yet to have one question who had a waiver from the president. who did have a waiver? sciu, aarp and said they need

obama care. they went to the white house and got the waiver. they got the waiver from the president. they begged and pleaded and probably had to commit to support obama care to get a waiver from obama care. all the regular folks have to live by it, but crony capitalism is what we call it. they got the waiver. look at solyndra. people using political favors in the white house to get special deals. we have seen how that turns out. it's not good for the american taxpayer. look at both. the white house told boeing unless they use union workers, they can't build a plant in south carolina. that's how the president uses waivers. if you make products in america and happen to do good in and find markets elsewhere you can't do that unless you cut a special deal with the president. this is the height of crony capitalism and the height of

what's wrong with our economy. under this amendment, you would not be able to export any of the products that are made on that list if you make them in america. if you make them in another country, the jobs would stay in the other countries, but no longer can you have made in america stamped on the products. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlemen's time is expired. anyone wish to speak on their own and do we have to listen to marky one more time? gentlemen from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i am glad i heard my colleague from massachusetts give those to oppose it. we produce steel in our country and we can get it from canada. are we going to see an amendment that we can't export steel? i have this battle in my own caucus that chemicals in refined products are manufacturing.

our goal is to have manufacturing capability here and we have the downstream jobs. louisiana and texas has much of them, but i don't mind sharing them. somebody else wants a refinery, i will help you build it. why would we say you can't explore a product produced in the country. here we we want and all the natural gas we can get. we also realize our natural gas now is we have to begin to export used for transportation or utility companies. it's the cheapest available in almost my lime this amendment, i don't agree with the bill itself, but this is bad because manufacturing capability through

exports. on our side of the aisle, they made the lead on manufacturing in america. manufacturing. refined products and chemicals are manufactured. up until the high prices of natural gas in the middle of the last decade, chemicals was one of the biggest export items. those are jobs that are not only in my district, but all over the country. pennsylvania has chemical jobs and new jersey. we don't share the wealth as much. refining is manufacturing. my fear years ago is we had countries who wanted to build refineries to export to our country. just think if we agreed to that. what if we were waiting? >> we will leave these remarks from earlier today.

you can see it all again in the video library at c-span.org. we will go live to capitol hill for the afternoon session. >> we are prepared to vote on the amendments offered to the bill. so that the order of amendments in the sequence was the amendment offered by mr. marky and dingle and mr. doyle. i will ask at this point, ask the clerk to call roll on the marky amendment and ask her particularly on this first amendment to go reasonably slow to allow all to be able to vote. not too slow, but reasonably slow.

with that, the vote will occur on the marky amendment. >> mr. barton. mr. sterns. mr. whitfield. mr. whitfield votes no. mr. shim kiss. mr. shim kiss votes no. mr. pits. mr. pits votes no. mr. bono mac. mrs. bono mac votes no. mr. walden. mr. walden votes no. mr. terry. mr. terry votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes no. mrs. mi rick. mrs. mi rick votes no. mr. sullivan. mr. sullivan votes no. mr. murphy. mr. burgess. mr. burgess votes no.

mrs. blackburn. mr. bill gray. mr. bill gray votes no. mr. bass. mr. bass votes no. mr. gingry. mr. ska lis. mr. ska lis votes no. mr. lata votes no. mrs. mcmorris rogers. mrs. mcmorris rogers votes no. mr. harper. mr. harper votes no. mr. lance. mr. lance votes no. mr. cassidy. mr. cassidy votes no. mr. guthrie. mr. guthrie votes no. mr. oleson. mr. oleson votes no. mr. mckinley. mr. mckinley votes no. mr. gardener. mr. gardener votes no. mr. pock peo votes no. mr. kin singer. mr. kin singer votes no. mr. griffith. mr. griffith votes no.

mr. waxman. mr. waxman votes aye. mr. dingle. mr. dingle votes no. mr. marky. mr. marky votes aye. mr. towns. mr. towns votes aye. mr. paloan? >> mr. paloan votes aye. mr. rush votes aye. mr. engle votes aye. >> mr. green votes no. mr. duget votes no. mr. caps votes aye. mr. doyle. mr. doyle votes no. mr. shekowsky votes aye. mr. congal ez votes no. mr. insly votes no. ms. baldwin. mr. ross. mr. ross