regulator, government regulation is one of the major barriers to the creation of jobs of jobs and energy independence in this country. if we're not brave enough to admit we've overregular eighted and strangled the ability to create jobs and create energy in this country, we'll never serve our consistency. . let me bring up the issue of export. i was a regulator that not only mandated -- in california we require ul have a low sulfur fuel. that has been outlawed in many nonretain are areas in this country, under direct mandate out of the epa and the clear air act. in the gentleman from massachusetts wants to place this amendment on this bill, is he also willing to exempt all fuel -- eliminate all fuel mandates and clean fuel mandates that may be affected by this amendment? let me tell you something, a lot of this exported fuel is higher

sulfur fuel that cannot be used in many places in this country. so you can't play this game and not go back and take a look at what's driving the machinery and so much of this action that you don't like to see is being driven by the regulations mandated by this congress and by the federal government and then we are upset about the results but we don't want to go back and correct it. i just want to point out the biggest problem, mr. chairman, of things like mr. waxman's so-called renewable fuel mandate is not that we try new things or that we make mistakes but 25 years later, 20 years later we are not brave enough to admit we made a mistake and go correct it and weep just keep throwing money at the regulation rather than correct it. i yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen, for yielding. he kind of stole my thunder in regard to the automobile history, chrysler and general motor got a $25 billion dollar

bailout, mr. bilbray pointed out no restriction in selling those automobiles in the nondomestic market. i don't think you would hear the success story that they're purporting today if f that had been the case. let me go back to this issue of refined products. i think we owe mr. markey a debt of gratitude. i would say all the women of the world probably are very pleased to know now that panty hose is a refined product. they may be a little disappointed in china and taiwan and south korea to know they can't go shopping and get panty hose made in america. and this business about the tooth brush, i guess it's okay we can sell a tooth brush on a stick but not a tooth brush on a plastic handle. mr. markey's amendment is not a good amendment. i know he's been looking at it, thinking about it and i hope he'll decide to withdraw it because it really doesn't make a lot of of sense. >> time has expired.

>> does mr. dingell seek recognition? he's the only member on the minority side that doesn't peak on this amendment. >> have a splendid amendment to be offered later but i don't seek recognition at too time. >> the gentleman from louisiana, dr. cassidy is recognized. >> i'm struck to the hostility to the blue collar jobs that this amendment expresses and i keep wondering why are they so hostile to these job, even broaching into jingoism, i've never heard "foreign" said so much today. let's inject some truth. there's a decline in oil imports from mexico and venezuela and this oil will replace that. secondly, the question is whether or not this is going to be shippedover seas. i'd like to submit for the record a report from the department of energy but let me cut to the chase on this particular part of it. the department of energy says it concludes that exports of

canadian oil sands from port arthur are unlikely. okay? so this is a department of energy statement. let's inject some truth. but then mr. markey says, well, heck, if it's unlikely, let's just go ahead and outlaw it anyway, no harm, no foul. well, there's an article today in the "national journal" in which it quotes jim baucus, head of wto, former democrat from florida, congressman, who says that all forms of protectionism are politically appealing, particularly in an election year. he then add you but there's recent action by the united states against china for a similar export restriction similar to this, of condition not allowing commodities. and we have said china has broken free trade laws with their system of export, taxes and quotas. he goes on to say 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 michael levy, an energy expert at the kounl on foreign relations is quoted in the same article, if this was somehow effective at trapping rocket in the united states that otherwise would be exported, the ultimate impact on gasoline prices could very well be bad 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 sending it to port arthur free trade zone allows it to evade paying u.s. trade taxes. well, with respect to u.s. taxes, the facts that port arthur is a free trade zone, this is a different source, has no bearing on u.s. revenue from canadian oil sands, imports or exports. these imports just like the mexican ones are not subject to duties under nafta. we looked it up. i think mr. markey you voted in favor of nafta. so actually the trade -- the tax

treatment of this product is not related to the free trade zone, it's related to the nafta treaty and maybe we want to revisit that. i'm not sure why suddenly that becomes something which we object to. lastly, i said, well, what is the true agenda? why are they hating these glue collar jobs? why are these guys and gals who will be able to work, have benefits, have good wages not being supported which bianyway friends on the other side of the aisle? the last thing i'll really is from the "new york times." obviously we all know what means. this is an article from the poison politics of keystone xl. as it turns out environmental movement doesn't just want to shut down keystone, its real goal ace discovered recently talking to executive director of the sierra club is much bigger, part of a broader effort to stop expansion of tar stands and choking off the ability to find

markts for tar sands oils. the writer in the "new york times" goes on to say this is a ludicrous goal. if it were to succeed it, would be deeply damaging to the national interests of both canada and the u.s., it has no chance of succeeding. energy is the single most important industry in china. china's first for oil is hardly going to be deterred by the sierra club. there's at least one country in north america that understands where its national interests lie. too bad it's not the united states of america. both for our national interests and for the interest of our workers and lastly in the interest of truth, i ask both sides of the aisle to support this project. i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield the last 40 seconds? >> i yield. >> when you speculate on commodity product, there's winners and losers. we always talk about those who win. we never talk about those who lose their shirt. on commodity product, canada is not in opec, which would be

gratifying for to us have access to that oil. keystone is not an oil company, eight pipeline company. it does have oil companies that are partners in that aspect but the people who are mining the oil sands are marathon, shell, bp and china has a big interest. we sell a lot of coal in this country overseas to china and would i hate this to be a prelude to stopping that. >> your time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. allston, is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. this should come as no surprise but i speak in opposition to the markey amendment. being from texas i want to thank my colleague from massachusetts for his advice about voting against his amendment. it's real simple. when a domestic industry is it makes a product that the world demands and pays american workers to manufacture, this is a positive development. when an industry here in the

united states manufactures a product in excess of what u.s. consumers demands and is able to export that product oversea, 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 deficit. we see the situation in many sectors of our economy, heavy machinery manufacturers like cat pilller, aerospace like boeing. it's incorrect to think lobstermen will set the same amount of traps if a significant portion of their demand is curtailed by law. the same applies to refined petroleum products. american refineries currently produce in excess of what the u.s. economy kmi needs. refiners will only supply what is demanded.

if the markey amendment became law, refiners would be forced to reduce operations and lay off workers. i want to address another issue as a mork who has flown actually in the middle east. even if some of our foreign products are exported, keystone crude would still displace opec crude that u.s. refiners currently import, refine and, yes, in some cases export. it's important to have a reliable, reliable source of crude. the spikes we're seeing right now in the oil market aren't because of any supply issues, they're because of uncertainty in one part of the world, the strait of hormuz. we've had the arab spring, libya, tunisia. we've got iran threatening to shut down the strait of hormuz. i'm probably the only member of

congress who has thrown through a mission on in the strait of horm use. it's very narrow. for you in texas, that's the distance from houston to g galveston to zip down the freeway. the commercial traffic, tanker lanes are close to iran, pushed to the northern part of strait. it's very shallow, 200 feet. 30% of the transported crude flows through the straits of hormuz. if those shut down for any amount of time, maybe two month, the price will spike dramatically. it is a national security issue. you don't have to take my word for it. the department of state agrees. we had a similar issue about three years ago. a pipeline called the alberta clipper which came from the same spot in canada and came over to the lake superior on the great lakes. this is the record of decision by the state department for the alberta clipper pipeline. i'll read one portion to you. it applies today.

the department of state has determined through review of the alberta clipper project application that the alberta clipper project would serve the national interests in a time of considerable political tension and -- excuse me, in a time of considerable political tension in other major producing countries by providing additional access to a proximate, table secure ply of crude oil with minimum transportation requirements from a reliable ally and trading partner of the united states with which we have freed trade agreements and further augments the security of this oil supply. if that rang true three years ago, it rings true more so today. again, one other thing we need to talk. the tar sands oil that has been the other side has demonized, they also need to realize that this oil is going to be developed. it's already developed in canada and sent here to tar refineries,

the ones who are the best in terms of the environmental impact of producing this oil or it's sent toat a real simple ch me. if my choice for my kids' future, if i'm betting on canada or opec, i'm betting on canada. i urge my colleagues to vote against the markey amendment. >> the gentleman lady from california seeks time on her own accord, i believe. >> i do. >> she is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this has ban very interesting debate, not only on this amendment but on others that have been offered. i've listened with a great deal of attention to what members have said on both sides of the issue regarding the underlying legislation.

let me just outline the things that really trouble me about this. first of all, i think that this is a terrible way to legislate slate. and let me tell you why. no presidential permit is required for the pipeline. there's a requirement ferc is to issue a permit for the pipeline within 30 days of receiving an application. so no one is interested in what the responsibilities of an agency are for review on behalf of the american people, including my constituents. so this is on a high-speed rail for being approved. i mean, just do it by decree. why even bother going to an agency? you're telling an agency to turn

an answer in. it's a predetermined answer. and that's it. you waive all other applicable requirements under nepa. if ferc doesn't act on the permit application within 30 days, the permit is deemed to have been approved. i've never heard of such a thing. this is my 20th year in congress. i've never heard of such a this evening. -- thing. no route in nebraska but there are people that are being challenged, let's put it that way, by the oil company in question. what bothers me the most is the sense that the american people have that we're not looking after them, that every other

interest, special interest, whatever it is, whether it comes to money and campaigns, whether it comes to oil companies, whatever it is that that all comes before their interests. are there some interests that are going to benefit from this? no question about it. do i think the jobs are inflated? i do. there are some jobs that your going to be created in this. but what is so deeply troubling to me is how roughshod this is, that no matter what the facts are, they just doesn't matter. and i believe that this decision, if it's 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 it was done and that the interests 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 mr. markey's amendment that need some tightening up. but i think what the base of his amendment is you better put the american people first in this. and under the guise of oil we say we're putting their interest first except no one can step in and do anything according to the underlying legislation because you've already predetermined that they simply have to stamp the paper approved. that's not the way we're supposed to operate in congress. and we're not supposed to operate that way because we're supposed to be here more than anything else for the common good and the interest of the

public. and if there's anything that i hear from my constituents it's that they feel as if a lot of other things come first with the congress but not them and the good of the country. and they're worried sick about it. and i think that's really what's at play here today. so i appreciate the debate. i think members have come up with very good things on both sides of the aisle but this is where i come down. i'm going to support the markey amendment. i'm going to support it. and it bothers me not how many votes it gets because i think at the heart it have is what i just stated. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> is any other member who has not spoken seek krek recognition for purposes of debate of the markey amendment? seeing no member seeking recognition, time for debate on the markey amendment -- time for debate has elapsed. we will recognize mr. markey to

ask questions of counsel before we call for the vote, which prior to the agreement between mr. upton and mr. waxman will be postponed until approximately 12:30. mr. markey has some questions for counsel. >> it's just two questions. the first question to counsel is looking at the amendment when an american plastics company buys oil biteman or refined petroleum products, has the oil, pitchmen entered into domestic commerce -- >> the end of that clause -- >> has it entered into american commerce when an american plastic company buys -- >> yes. >> has it entered into american commerce? >> yes. >> it has. second question.

now, once that oil bit u men or refined petroleum product is turned into a plastic, will it ever be turned back into oil or has it been finally disposed of, is it no longer oil in order? has there been a final disposition of it? >> i think that's the part that he was unclear looking at for instance it can be if that's -- i think it's unclear -- >> if it's put into a plastic -- if it's put into steel, is not then finally disposed of? >> no that, could be recycled or transferred to use for another product. >> but can it be turned into oil again? >> no. but the -- >> that's the final disposition as oil -- >> i think what's uncleared. >> it can be repsych l into steel or plastic but cannot be

recycled into oil. >> taking it to its most extreme, if it is land fill, then over long periods of time it will become oil again. that's where things become unclear. >> then it can be exported because it's in the land fill. is that not correct? >> no, i was talking about the hundreds of years long term. >> over a 50 or 60,000 year period it, can then be turned back into oil. is that what you're saying? over millions of years? like a dinosaur? is that how you're reading -- >> we're going to dispose -- >> theoretically possible like a dinosaur to be turned back into oil so it's not in its final disposition. >> it didn't seem final disposition was whether or not it could be turned back into oil. it says final disposition and then it's what is disposed. that seems like the end of its life or the end of its use. >> it's where the oil bitmen has

been finally disposed. it's finally disposed when the plastic company purchases it and turns it into plastics. otherwise counsel is giving as you totally absurd interpretation where it could potentially go to a land fill and over a million years be turned into oil again. that is is an absurd interpretation by counsel. she is absolutely stretching this -- >> no, actually, that i disagree with. i don't think that the language is clear. i can appreciate the interpretation that you have but i think the language as far as what final disposition means is unclear. >> final disposition is whether a plastic company purchases it. >> the chair is going to postpone the vote on the markey amendment until the full committee chairman and ranking member are back from their other committee hearing. does any member seek recognition to -- for what reason does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> just to make a statement on pronunciation.

>> briefly. >> it's okay to use the word pitchmen. the product is called pitchmen. we don't have to float around what is this product. it is pitchmen. >> you got to be careful how you say it. >> if i may, in the interest of comedy, when you says mass a-tusesse, there was no pronunciation correction. >> i have the benefit of the texas exception. >> that's what i'm saying. >> which is however we say it, that's the way it is as far as we're concerned. >> and we say nevada, not nevada, oregon, not -- >> there are regional -- >> but the fcc will not penalize us for saying bicheman. >> let's get control of the committee. >> the gentleman is recognized

for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> i think it would be wonderful to be read. i'd like my colleagues to hear the admirable contents. >> substitute amendment offered by mr. dingell of michigan to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> you haven't finished reading. >> that objection considered as read. >> i kind of like having it read. >> clerk will read the amendment. >> in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following, section 1, keystone xl pipeline project authorization end permits. the procedures established under executive order 13337 as issued by president george w. bush on april 30, 2004 shall be carried out with the respect to

authorization of and permits for the keystone xl pipeline project. >> thank you. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. you will note, my dear friends and colleagues, that this amendment is going to utilize the procedures set forth by president george w. bush on april 30, 2004 with regard to the permitting of the pipeline. the amendment would require approval and permitting processes follow clearly understand processes established by president george w. bush. my friend notice majority who have been pushing so hard on this issue are concerned about the amount of time it's been taking to approve the permit to build this pipeline. in the executive order in question, president bush established a timely process in which an issue like this can be

considered. agencies can be consulted regarding the permit application are required to submit their views within 90 days. the environmental review can be completed, and expert who know about the subject and project like this can and will be consulted. and it will be dealt with by agencies with greater expertise than by the state department on matter of the permitting that 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 root of the pipeline and well established and well understood mechanisms for issuing permits of this kind are unfortunately disregarded in the legislation buffs. the legislation before us going to be a splendid source of litigation, lawsuit, ill will and political troubles 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 1,700 mile pipeline that's going to cross rivers, ak kwi fers. it's going to go cross public lands, partials, farmlands, through municipalities and it's going to create an absolutely magnificent opportunity for litigation and ill will. so what we are essentially doing is codifying in an expedited fashion a process that will give more weight than an executive order, even though 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 forward 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, and this is something which should be kept in mind, that pipeline is going to be built going west or it's going to be built going south. i want to see it going south because if it built going south, it goes through the united states. and it uses 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 we need the oil. the oil is going to come and it is going to be produced in one

way or another and we might as well toe z to it that the benefit are derived by the united states. having said this, we are simply codifying the process, expediting the matter and avoiding a prodigious wealth of litigation which will occur and which i can assure you will be handled very well by the environmentalists in their opposition to 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 that we do so in a way which confers the benefit on the united states, jobs in the united states and other things but which does it in a way which can be understood by our people by reason of the fact that wheer using subtle processes that have been used since the dates of the alaskan pipeline in the 70s and since the dates when the