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

>> the gentleman yield back. anyone over here wish to speak? the gentleman from alabama, mr. scalise. >> thank you. i think it's important to note that the jobs we're talking about being brought about by ski stone, if you look at this amendment, and i'm not sure if the gentleman was aware that 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. and, in fact, as we were told, half of 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 say they're laying off people already in arkansas because the president refuses to approve keystone. in that arkansas mill that manufactures that steel, the federal government won't approve the keystone 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. and 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. and each time our friends on the other side are going to say, look, they want the pipeline but you've got to put this condition in. they want the pipeline but they've got to put this condition in. i know we tried to build a steel mill in south louisiana that's finally moving forward. in fact, the biggest impediment to the building of that steel mill in america was federal regulation. the new core mill, a lot's been written about it. for years they wanted to build it in america, and as cap and trade was coming through, they started looking at brazil. they said, look, we want to build it in america, but these crazy regulations are blocking us from creating american jobs. ultimately they finally went forward after a couple years of lost jobs. then we heard, there's not enough studies. the environmental studies have been done.

this project was on the books of the secretary of state going back to 2008. the state department had this request for keystone going back to 2008. and they've been studying it. in fact, hillary clinton back in 2010 said, we ought to move forward with it. in 2011 last year, the 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, people can say, oh, i'm for the keystone pipeline, but i just want to study it some more. in the meantime, china is saying they want it. china wants to send it to america. china wants to send the jobs to america, but america right now through these radical policies are saying, no. if america doesn't want the jobs, they'll go to china. so it's come to our lap. congress can sit back and do nothing about it, but wii take'

taken the initiative and said we want to create jobs, and unfortunately, the only way to do that is through congress. the president is not going to do it. he put this off after they went through the election. so he made it about politics. everybody is coming, they want the keystone pipeline, they just don't want it. so the amendment came up that, whether well intended or not, we could kill the deal. we can keep pushing this off and pushing this off. fortunately, the author of the bill, the chairman of the committee, all of us who have co-sponsored it have said, these jobs with worth fighting for. these are 20,000 american jobs that will happen or not happen depending on 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. he wants to do anything to keep the focus away from his policies. if congress actually does something, congress passes the jobs bill, this keystone bill,

and it will create 20,000 jobs. it's unfortunate the president would rather the narrative, that congress is doing nothing. i guess some in congress have blocked it. they'll find more excuses and wait for more studies, and in the meantime, china is going to get the oil and china is going to get the jobs. we either want it or not. if you're going to say, i want it but i want the president to decide it, the president has made that decision. the president said he doesn't want it, at least before the election. which means we won't get it. because after the election, it's going to china. so the president has decided what he wants. the question we've got to answer is, are we willing to fight for those american jobs, anyway, even if the president doesn't want them. he's made it clear and the stakes are clear. the canadian prime minister who is a friend of ours expressed how offended he was when the president rejected keystone. we know the steel has already been purchased. it's a fact. and we know that as much as they could get from america they d

the rest they got from canada. some they got from arkansas and now arkansas is laying people off. are we going to fight for these jobs and pass the bill, or are there just games played to try to delay this, run the clock out and let china get the jobs. >> the young lady from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield my time to mr. doyle. >> thank you very much. i want to make a couple points that -- based on what mr. scalese said. let's understand something. the steel 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 and bending it and welding the seams. that's what's going on in little rock, arkansas. there are approximately two to three hundred jobs at that plant. that plant was opened up, by the way, two years ago, in 2009 when the company that was successful

in getting the contract got the contract, they wanted to force a plant here in the united states to take their product and bend the pipe. it's run by a fine gentleman from pittsburgh whose parents live in my district, and 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, but what bothers me about this whole debate is how somebody is telling the american people things that just aren't true. and i'm not -- you know, we get our information from the people we ask to get our information from. and it took me a long time to get a straight answer from the permit act -- actually, i never did get a straight answer -- on just exactly where this 75% is. i think one or two things should happen. they should either stop saying this, stop telling the american people they're 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 th country. they have every right to use foreign steel. at this is a private project and they can buy their steel anywhere they want to buy it. that their right and i'm not being critical to that. i'm sure the company providing the steel is a fine company, okay? but don't sit here and blow 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. >> yes, i would. >> he knows i'm sympathetic. i've got steel mills in my district, u.s. steel is located there. we should get him the answer. our staff note says that 50 keystone steel originated from the united states and the second largest source was from canada. if that's not true, we should get your answer, and i would ask

to do that. >> thank you. and let me reclaim my time and say that i believe you'll find out that the steel in canada has been imported from russia and that the steel in this country has been kbroimported from indi. if i'm wrong, prove me wrong. >> if the gentleman would yield, i would be happy -- it's important to know. >> will the gentleman yield? >> if i could just continue. devotion to steel workers, which they're not as friendly with me even though i work on it. remember the plumbers and pipefitters support this. >> i support this. i just don't like being bs'd, okay? anybody else on my time? >> thank you for pointing b. in.

this is bad marketing. it's poor marketing. how did the american people win under this? here is another chink in the armor of the leapfrog 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're going to have -- we've got six votes, in essence, here, so we're going to have to come back after the vote. so let's finish the debate and 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 we have a quorum. mr. gary, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. doyle, i want to work with you that as we go forward, we are encouraging transcanada 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, so adopting it basically says, you go and sell that for scrap and come back and start over again, and i don't think that's very practical. but there will be offshoots and such. but on the issue of whether or not the u.s. steel, you know, over this since, really, last spring, and thee steel portion of it didn't come up at all until the very last hearing, and i was unaware that transcanada was making any assertions like that. i mean, we have their excuse that, you know, they contract these companies and all of 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 offshoots, and see if we can't get them to make sure that's u.s.-made steel, and i would yield to the gentleman from louisiana, dr. katsi and dr. murphy. >> i also agree, mr. doyle, that if we're being misled, we should know that. but i did speak to the company in baton rouge that you referenced, and they said if the feet of pipe that's stockpoje, they will lose their market. there will be such an oversupply that they will go elsewhere and they will lay people off. so there is a supply chain aspect to this which we cannot ignore. >> reclaiming my time and yield to -- i need to yield to the other doctor from pennsylvania.

>> thank you, mr. er doyle, my friend from pennsylvania, my neighbor i also am as committed as w do everyth can to encourage american manufacturing. as you also pointed out, however, a private company has the right to purchase things where it is, and if there's any federal dollars in this, i know that i support the issue in the past about buying american where it is, whether it's for military equipment or other things and we stand shoulder to shoulder there. i want to continue to work with you on this andge >> did the gentleman yield? >> yeah. recognize the gentleman from pittsburgh, mr. doyle. >> i agree with everything my friend from louisiana said. we know the pipe is sitting on the property and they want it use it in the pipeline. they're a private company and

they can buy wherever they want. but that type comes from askedt applicant if there was any of the steel source from india. they told us no. i mean, i'm just saying, hey, let's just all be straight with. they have every right to use that pipe. i know they don't want it to sit there and rust, but i'm just saying at some point let's stop making claims about this project that aren't true. i'm going to support the project when it's done the right way, and i wish there were u.s. steel in the project, but let's not make people think this is the greatest thing since apple pie and ice cream. >> i'm going to reclaim my time for the last minute and 15, and let me just reassert, there is no leapfrogging here, that we're only here today because the president denied the permit under his authority. he killed the project just like the sierra club and the nrdc asked him to do.

when they sent their notice to congress pursuant to the law on this, they said it wasn't on the merits. they just need mord time becaed because nebraska's 50 mile loop, or whatever it was, they had ignored that. we heard testimony from the state department who said we demanded they haveth nebraska, nebraska, because nebraska, we had to kill it. bull. they had all the time they needed on nebraska. so the reality is everything that they said isn't that is needed and what's that they base their decisions off of as well. they've already said it's not based on environmental issues, the denial or anything else. the reality was because they

don't want to make a decision before the election. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to correct the record. republicans are using this as a political ping-pong for themselves saying the president is against it, the president is stopping it, the president is costing us jobs. that's not true. it's all politics. the president said he wanted more information. he didn't say he was against the pipeline, he said he wanted more information. republicans wanted to force him to decide the issue so they held up a bill for people's unemployment, and for a middle class tax cut until they got a provision in there saying, he had to decide within 60 days. they assumed he would have to decide it in favor, but the president said, no, i don't have to decide it in favor, i'm entitled to get the information, and after i get the information to make the decision. now that the president said he wouldn't decide it on their

timetable, the republicans are saying, let's pass this bill as an extraordinary earmark. congress will approve this pipeline or they'll turn it over to the federal regulatory commission and give it 30 days. but if they can't decide in 30 days, it's congress is trying to approve this program, to go with this pipeline, even if there are unanswered questions. as i understand this amendment before us, they haven't gotten a straight answer from transcanada as to whether they're going to use american steel or not? they're not getting a straight answer or they're being misrepresented? why don't you think they're not misrepresenting other things? you don't want to give the

government of the united states or whoever has permission of these pipe lines the accurate fact or know the truth before they sign off on it. instead the president says, don't bother us with this information. get the facts to approve it. we want this approved and we will blame the president if it's not approved. i just think the american people ought to see this as strictly political and unfortunate when americans want jobs and the republicans have not cooperated in getting us jobs, this is their jobs bill. this is the only proposal the republicans have for more jobs. they have two others. let the people who are the upper, upper income keep more o. i talked to a fellow who told me if i got another tax cut, i'm still not going to hire more people unless there's demands. and the other way that they want to create jobs is to throw out regulations to protect the public health and

environment. well, throw those out. that's the wish list of all these industries that don't want to spend any money. but even the industries that are going to be required to meet these obligations are not asking for what the republicans are advancing, they want to make people think the reason we don't have jobs is because there are regulations, that the rich aren't rich enough and that this pipeline will provide jobs. well, i think the american people can see through that. that's not a formula for creating jobs. a formula for creating jobs is to put money in people's hands, get jobs for them, real jobs, not theset seem to fit the republican agenda. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'll be happy to. >> the president's own commission says the place to get permission is on the pipelines. >> i assume about

the deficit commission? >> the one that recently spoke of -- >> the president -- >> he convened a commission to give him ideas on how to reduce the deficit. doesn't mean he has to agree -- >> again, it not just republicans it the president's peoples and advisers that say the pipelines are the way to create jobs. >> it may be a way to create jobs but having pipelines that take tar sands oil and have to that oil so it can go through a other pipeline. this is a different pipeline. we want to know are we endangers communities through a pipeline using this particular kind of oil. >> will the gentlemen yield? >> not yet. there's a study that is supposed to determine whether that is safe or not. i think the amendment should be

adopted and members out to understand, if you are getting misreputations on u.s. steel being used or not, you may be getting other misreputations. >> time hasexpired. time on the debate for this issue has expired, we will convene at 2:45 with a roll call vote. you have three minutes. y and commerce later voted along party lines to advance the bill to keystoneatio gives the federal regulatory commission 30 days to approve the pipeline, taking the decision out of the hands of the white house. in a few moments the confirmation hearing for the new u.s. ambassador to india and in alternative more than a hour,

david grossman on israel future, and the two-state solution. when i first start today book, i thought, this must be an american story, this is about a country that worships self reliance, and living alone. it in fact more common in european nations, and it even more common in japan. >> on afterwards, in going solo, eric looks at the growing trend of american adults that choose to live alone and with what that means for the rest of the country. and the second cousin of the former secretary of state, on her work to reduce gang l.a. and starting a dialog between

police. book tv, every weekend on cspan 2. president obama's nominee was before the state department. previously she served as ambassador to pakistan, and ghana. this is a little more than an hour. >> now it's truly official. the hearing will come to order, it's my great, great pleasure together with senator lugar to welcome nancy j powell who has been nominated to be the ambassador to india, and before we start talking about india, i want to say a few words if i can

about egypt. egypt is much on the minds of all of my colleagues right now. and the recent events in egypt are particularly alarming. the attacks against civil society in egypt including american organizations like ndia, or ria, the international cent r for journalists and clearing house are disturbing. yesterday's prosecutions are frankly a slap in the face to americans who have supported egypt for decades and to egyptian individuals who have put their futures on the line for a more democratic egypt. right now it appear that some people are engaging in a

dangerous game. i have traveled to egypt three times now since the events of last year, the revolution, and it is of particular concern to see things moving in this direction, the challenge in front of egypt is mainly a economic challenge, they have burned through much of their treasury reserves, from some $40 billion to 42 billion they have gone down to 20, burning perhaps a bill to-- a billion to a bill a half in a month. they will have to turn their economy around and to do that they have to reattract the investors, the business people who helped to create an economy that was growing at 7% a year before the events at the square.

now that economy is more a tourist trade, which equalled 8% or more of the gdp it is at a stand still, when i was there, the hotels the occupancy was at about 11%. unless people get a message of stability, and a message that is warm and welcoming to business and to capitol, it will be very hard to turn that economy around and provide the stability necessary. this is a revolving circle and it needs to be a virtuous circle, they face a fiscal crisis and worsening political

environment and a difficult transition, so i believe it's important that the egyptian government recognize that it just cannot continue to under mine civil society and persecute the talent that is trying to bring security and prosperity. america stands as a ready and willing partner to support egypt's democratic transition and stablization, but it requires an atmosphere in which egypt's civil society and american friends a s are protec so i hope that this current crisis or challenge standoff, whatever you want to term it, can be resolved in a thoughtfulful and intelligent way or it may become difficult to do the kinds of things necessary. and egypt is important, it's important to the stability of

the region, it's important to the peace process ultimately with respect to to israel and palestinians and with all the other turmoil, syria and other parts of the world, the challenge of iran, the last thing that one needs is an egypt that is not moving along the path to democratic transition and to a stronger economy. now turning to india, we are really pleased to have this opportunity to discuss what is without doubt one of the most significant partnerships in u.s. foreign policy. there are few relationships that will be as vital in this century as the grows ties with the people of india. in all of the global challenges that we face, india has an important role, we will be looking to them for cooperation

and innovation and regional leadership. india's significance has been clear to many of us right now. i traveled to india and took one of the first business trade missions right after the economic reforms were first put in place and i have been there many times since. and and president obama immediately upon entering office inviting prime minister sing to be his guest at the very first state dinner. secretary clinton has visited india twice and both countries inaugurated the strategic dialog two years ago. republicans and democrats alike understand the need to capitalize on the democratic values and strategic interests that our two countries share, that is why it's important that we work together every day, as i believe we are right