this is -- if you want to solve the problem that is before us and if you want to come forward with something which in fact really does work to abate the problems that we are concerned with here today, then i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to see to it that it goes forward because in so doing we will be choosing the fastest way most free of the excessive litigation which is going to be triggered by the bill as it is written before us now. i urge my colleagues to to help us move this pipeline forward and to do so in a responsible and understood fashion in a way which will enable to us get the business of the nation done so we can perhaps to get down to some other things we have to do around this place. with that i yield back 14 seconds. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i rise in opposition to that amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. >> 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 chose to deny this permit, putting us in this position. the presidential permit, as done by executive order, the reassertion in here, 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 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 environmental 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 diligently and would make a decision before december 31st. this is the president then after the nldc, the sierra club that mr. cassidy pointed out during his statement on the last amendment said that this was going to be the line, this pipelines going to be the line in the sand that the environmental community drew for

the president. the president replied to that by saying i'm going to delay this until after the election. it is the president who made this a political football when he said he was going to put his election year politics ahead of the betts interest of this nation and this pipeline. so that is what put us in this predicament. and we're not going to go back to the politics that's being played within the white house right now. so this is the best mechanism, the means forward. if says we're going to take all the work product that the state department said was sufficient, we'd carve out that 30 mile or maybe 40 mile, maybe 50 mile jog in the state of nebraska and let that proceed but start on what's 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's not going to make the decision until after the election. and, by the way, this 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 reflectfully request and ask to put into the record a unanimous consent to put in the u.s. department of states memorandum permit 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 united states energy imports and in the immediate term the shovel-ready project will provide construction job 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 back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman woman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support mr. dingell's amendment because i think it's a sensible one. our colleagues across the aisle keep saying that transcanada isn't getting any special consideration. but that's really what this bill is about. this is a bill that's just chuck

full of exception. it applies to only one pipeline rather than pass a regulatory ear mark for keystone, mr. dingell's amendment codifies the executive order currently governing pipeline border crossings. so if this amendment were to be adopted, then all pipelines would have to play by the same rules. there wouldn't be one set of rules for keystone xl and one set of rules for everyone else. so i support it. again, i think it's sensible. it a much better way to go and i'd be happy to yield to mr. dingell. >> i'd be very appreciative. >> 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's the only area they have

expertise in. they're going to have to be all manner of environmental decisions made about all manner of other questions, crossing rivers, crossing streams, going past national forest, public lands, federal, state, local, dealing with the concerns of people in cities, question of safety and hazard and pollution and the water and the air and all manner 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 entrusting that kind of situation to an agency so lacking in expertise is a very serious one and we will regret it. the other point that i'm trying to make and apparently i can't seem to get through to my colleagues is you're substituting here in this legislation something which is a totally new and poorly understood process.

essentially what's 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 statistic and for every state and local agency that would be involved in the permitting of this kind of device. i think that is unwise in the extreme. and it's going to infuriate the environmentalists who will be on this like a duck on a june bug. and the end reality of this is you will 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 this pipeline expedited, you will follow the leadership of president george w. bus, who went taught do this in a rather thoughtful way, minimizing the

outrage that would be felt by the environmentalists in removing most of the opportunity for the environmentalist to have either credibility in their litigation or the opportunity to actually litigate these questions. and this is just plain common sense. is it going to take a little more? yes. in terms of time. but that is not bad and much of that work has already been done so that it doesn't have to be replicated a second time or a third time. s have sa-- having said this, i it going to infuriate the environmentalists? yes. but less so than the others and credibility for the ordinary citizens will be enhanced and it will be able to be defended by my good friend from nebraska who can say well, we've done this in

a way which is thoughtful and considers the concerns of everybody who would ordinarily be involved in the decision making process. i'm not going to tell you that anybody that's going to be satisfied with the result of this or any other amendment that we're going to be offering today or the legislation that's before us. i can only tell you that if we're going to do this, let try and do it in the most sensible way, avoiding the difficulties which would be created by setting up a curious new process, which is going to infuriate the environmentalists and cause all matter of litigation. and let me remind you that when these matters get into court, think stay there for a long time. let me remind the committee the vinnalists have established a splendid system of environmental law in which they have law firms just salivating about the prospects and the possibilities

of taking this kind of thing in the form of the legislation before this committee to court so that they can have great fun and in the process you are creating, believe it or not, a splendid full employment practices act for the lawyers. i urge you to accept the amendment. it will save time, money and it will get the pipeline built more speedily. and i thank the gentleman woman for yielding. >> the gentleman lead lady yields back her time to seek recognition the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> thank you very much. we all certainly have great respect for the gentleman from michigan and his amendment would basically put this project back to where it was and in our honest view the president himself, mr. obama, politicized this issue when he originally indicated he was going to postpone any decision until after the election.

and that's okay because, you know, politics is politics and we play our politics, you play your politics, the president plays his politics but the reason that we feel that this is imperative is because those of us on this side genuinely believe that 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'm convinced that the pipeline will never be built. and i also do not have any illusions that if this pipeline is built under whatever circu s circumstancircuit built, there will be plenty of lawsuits. they indicated at epa that have over 700 lawsuits pending right now under the clean air act and claert water act alone. but when the president made his

decision and he said have i not had enough time to review this, it left the impression with the american people that the route changed, therefore there really hadn't been enough time to look at this. well, there's been 40 months to review this pipeline. 11 agencies have looked at that time of the federal government, there have been seven committee meetings, two bills passed the house of representatives and one was signed into law. secretary clinton indicated in october of 2010 when asked a question are you going to approve the keystone pipeline, she said i'm inclined to do so based on the information that we have. so much really the only thing that has changed here is the 60-mile route in nebraska. everything else is the same.

this is over a 1,700 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 finish you'd 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 building the pipeline, the preferred decision was to build the pipeline. and one reason for that was that if it was not built and this oil comes out of canada by rail or by truck, the emissions would be much greater than they are using the pipeline. so it seems reasonable to adopt the terry legislation because basically what it says is, yes, ferc is going to make the

decision within a certain period of time. the state of nebraska has the opportunity to look at this route, make their environmental decisions based on that route. the nepa that 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's looked at it indicates that the protections are there and the only issue is like 60 miles within a 1,700 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 never being built. so with that i would

respectfully oppose his amendment. >> would you yield me your last 30 seconds? >> be happy to yield. >> 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 know that because all of the work health insurance -- work's been done, what wasn't clear at the beginning of the process is that the environmental community would come out and draw the line in the sand and say you need to kill this project. they even said, one of the gentlemen in the environmental community said this is the way to get your mojo back, to the president, your environmental mojo back. what's different is this has become the war of the environmentalist now. >> the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? >> gentleman from oklahoma is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm opposed to this amendment. i respectfully propose this amendment. i think the definition of sanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results and we're not getting results from the state department. the president has had ample time to make a decision son this. he can do it through executive order, we know he's used that in the past. he hasn't done it. he's delayed and delayed and delayed and 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 and census takers. these are private sector jobs, 20,000 or moe that will

immediately be employed by the construction of this pipeline. why is that not a good idea right now? unemployment's over 8%, 15 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 could revolutionize our country by 20,000 jobs and when 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 from the taxpayer. zero. it what we should be doing. eight shame it's not happening. and that's why i oppose this amendment. i'd also like to reserve some of my time for congressman terry. >> i don't need it anymore, thank up. >> would the gentleman yield the remaining time? >> i will. >> i'll just end by this. i wish my friend mr. terry would use the microphone where the binders are because they're

about three feet high -- two feet. two feet -- two double stacked and that would show a good picture. because it's gone through all the study. they're complying with nepa. we're talking about 60 miles out of a 1,700 mile pipeline that will be resolved in the state of nebraska. so i just want to end by the crs report in talking about who does have the authority, who really does have the authority to confirm or reject this pipeline? and the crs did a report answered quote on page 6 sourts of congressional thourt to regulate foreign congress. article i authorizes congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. whereas an independent presidential authority in matter affecting foreign commerce derives from the president's more general foreign affairs authority, congress's power over

foreign commerce is plainly enumerated by the constitution suggesting that suggesting in ts field is preeminent. that's us. in a review of the origins of the constitution's foreign commerce clause, the justice department's office and legal counsel emphasizes the placement of the foreign clause stating that the power to regulate foreign commerce at the national level must be vested in congress. the debate at the philadelphia convention over whether a fair majority or a supermajority of each house was required to enact foreign commerce regulations demonstrate that the framers intended such regulation to be made by a legislative body rather than an executive or a judicial one. with that i'm pleased with this movement by my colleague from nebraska. i think we're on firm legal ground. i will revisit it again.

with that i yield back my time to the gentleman from oklahoma who then yields it back to me. is there anyone else seeking recognition? seeing no one, the question is on the amendment. per agreement with ranking chairman and member rossman, talk will resume on that amendment at 12:30 when the conference committee returns. the gentleman requests both per the agreement with chairman member and ranking member rossman. that will be rolled into the series of three votes. once we readjourn -- i mean, once we start again at 12:30. with that, this markup is recess recessed.

sorry we're a little late coming back to congress. the tax cut extension is still going on. it's expected to finish in about five or six minutes, and i know that mr. waxman will be coming back shortly after that. we have two votes that we'll continue to keep pending as rolled. there are three? not two. and so what i'd like to do, i'm still told that we are expecting votes about 1:30, 1:40, so what i'd like to do, i know the gentlelady from california has an amendment and the gentleman from pennsylvania has an amendment, so this will have to wait until mr. waxman comes back, and maybe we can roll all the votes together. but if not, we will start with the gentlelady from california's

amendment for debate and see where we go from there. the gentlelady asks that her amendment be offered. we ask that her consent be considered as read and the staff will distribute the amendment, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> thank you. >> is is it 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 -- a subject that should be taken lightly. i don't think anyone here does, i know i don't. you're all aware and remember the pictures and newspapers across the country and in the news in september of 2010 when there was a natural gas explosion in san bruno, california, which is just north of where i live, where eight people were killed, dozens were injured, and 38 homes 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 sam bruno, california. so i think it's dangerous to move forward with a tar sands oil pipeline proposal which we have little to no experience regulating before we have the proper safety knowledge and procedures in place. now, on june 16 of last year,

the administrator of sirks msma cynthia quarterman, had not done a study analyzing the risks associated with transporting diluted cidoman. as for putting the pipeline into law, i urged the chairman to include language which required simsma to include the regulation of hazardous pipeline regulation to determine whether the regulations are sufficient to ensure the safety of pipeline used for the transportation of diluted sidamin. so what my review requires is to

first review the results of the simsma study before issuing the permit. that's really what the heart of the amendment is for the keystone excel pipeline. under the amendment, construction of the pipeline could begin but not until we know the standards that are in place of safe transportation of diluted sidaman. i think the study is important for the american people, which i raised earlier, and i think the approach makes sense because it's far less costly to build pipelines correctly than it is to try to fix or replace a line that's already built, and i think another very important consideration is the following, and that is that if a recent oil spill had occurred, particularly the spill from transcanada's keystone pipeline which have leaked 21,000 gallons of crude in north dakota are a warning to

all of us that we need to get this right. for these reasons, mr. chairman, i offer my amendment, and ask my colleagues to support it. and i yield back. >> you yielded back? >> i did. >> are there other members wishing to speak on the amendment? if not, let me yield myself of five minutes. the gentlelady is correct. i supported her amendment. we did a study as part of the pipeline's safety bill. as you know, that study is not supposed to be done until mid-2013, july of 2013, so i would note that oil sand crude

has been transported in pipel e pipelines for decades, and though i supported her amendment for a study, i'm anxious to see what that study is and made a promise to the gentlelady 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 this amendment would delay the permitting of this pipeline knowing that, in fact, we've used pipelines to transport this oil sand for some time, and, therefore, would urge that it be defeated. >> mr. chairman, would you yield? mr. chairman? >> let me yield to mr. shimkas and yourself. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i'll be brief also. when i visited the oil sands where they mine and then they boil the oil off