requirement only if it could be shown that an export of the oil of fuels won't increase our dependence on oil or fuels we buy from hostile nations. >> the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like my map better than my friend, mr. markey's map. just because it shows all of the pipelines that we have currently in this country. i also would like to -- i have said this numerous times in this committee that the keystone pipeline ends outside of my district. and my refinery, the conacoe phillips did it during the lowest financial times. why? so they can ship it down south? no. to refine it. there's a better return on investment for refining a product than just moving the

bulk commodity product as is. but 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 commodity products? the more supply of a commodity product on the market, the lower price of demand stays the same. it's very simple. my friend's map had -- why would we ship crude oil down to the gulf coast to then ship it to china? where is harper today? harper is in china. why? because he's trying to 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 of 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, environmentally 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. whether it's 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 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 6. america's gaining energy independence. which is what we always talk about in this committee. wouldn't it be great to get to energy independence? it mentions restrained

consumption will lessen demand 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. that's from the chief energy economist at deutsche bank in washington. another point raised in this article is that, you know, the keystone xl pipeline is going to help us bring our crude oil products from the balkan fields in north dakota. instead of trucking it, we can exploit the balkan fields in north dakota. north dakota, the center of the exportation is now the third state behind texas, alaska and california even. california is a big oil producing state. while u.s. consumers would still be susceptible to surges in global oil prices, we'd end up

sending some of the cash to north dakota rather than to saudi arabia. i think that's 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, demand stays the same. the price is lower. that's true or the crude oil and true for corn and true for beans, that's true for pork. that's true for any commodity product. you increase the supply, demand stays the same, prices go down. so even if you accept his premise, oil going on the world market is a 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 things that they break the barrel 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. >> gentleman's time has expired. gentle lady from california -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to yield my team to mr. markey. >> i wish you had told -- >> 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 gonna go out into the rest of the world and that would be great.

that would be great because the price of oil will go down globally. and we should be very happy for that and somehow or other, the experts -- the export strategy will be to send that oil to china or to send it to argentina or to europe. and our consumers will be benefited by that. because that's the 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. is that we play under opec's laws of supply and demand. and their law is, and here's what they say to us. we supply the oil -- opec. you pay what we demand. you know, any time the price goes down too low, we meet in vienna and we lower the price and 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 by memorial day the price of gasoline could be $4, $5 in some parts of the country. so here's a great opportunity for us. the prime minister of china is -- the prime minister of canada, rather, is saying on the one hand, that this would be great. that our oil would be north american oil here in the united states. but on the other hand, when we asked transcanada will you agree that the oil stays in the united states, they go oh, no. no, no, no, no. then you read all the other things that they're saying and it's pretty clear that we're going to be kind of a conduit, you know, 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 just say it's 1 million or 2 million barrels of oil a day, going out into the global market. but farther united states, it wou wouldbe a lot of additional oil. why is that important? here's a big fact for you. last year, for the first time in 62 years, the united states was a net exporter of oil products. 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? >> would the gentleman yield? >> 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 gasoline that this policy of exporting oil and increasing the amount with this bill that's passing today will

absolutely infuriate the american driver. and in fact, american has now exported 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 hormuz. 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, pause 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 would you like our oil, or will they 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. 's going to south america. it's going to europe under any circumstances unless you pass my amendment. that's their plan. don't you understand? if i came from louisiana or texas i'd go along with opposition to the amendment. if you come from texas or louisiana, vote against markey's amendment. i give you this warning, texas, oklahoma, louisiana, vote no. but if you come from any other part of the united states, i don't know what you're thinking. >> gentleman -- >> this oil is not going to the united states. it's going to other countries in the world. >> gentleman's time has expired. before i recognize mr. scalise, i'm going to ask my friend from massachusetts a question. when -- and we all know it's --

you were an entrepreneur as a young man. you were selling ice cream at red sox fenway park? >> that is true. >> did you only sell it to people that only said i will sell it to people who will only eat it in front of me? did you have an eat in my presence to buy the ice cream? >> you had to eat it within red sox nation. >> did he sell it to yankee fans? that what's i want to know. >> i just want -- >> did he sell it to yankee fans? >> that's true. if he had restrictions on who he sold it -- >> let me say this. there was no world ice cream cocktail. 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 -- >> i keep my prices low.

>> i'm going to recognize one of the folks from louisiana that you pointed out. mr. scalise. >> thank my colleague from texas for yielding. i hone my -- i hope my colleague from new england is not blaming the entire oil industry just 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. and i think that gets to the heart of the flaw of this amendment because 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 by-products. none of those products would be able to be exported to any foreign country. so you literally -- we've got a chart here of some of the 6,000

products that are manufactured using oil. in this list, you've got tires, car tire, bicycle tires. motorcycle helmets. dashboards 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 use petroleum to make heart valves. toothbrushes. football helmets. crayons. life jackets. parachutes. got a parachute i guess when you open it up it has to say made in china now under mr. markey's amendment. antihistamines. there are a lot of products that are made that help save lives.

just basic aspirin. aspirin uses petroleum. as one of the by-products in manufacturing aspirin. no aspirin under this amendment would be allowed to be manufactured in america. purses. deodorant. pantyhose. tool boxes. you can't go to work with your tool box anymore if it's made in america under this amendment because it contains a by-product of petroleum that might have been refined and manufactured in america. you could buy it if it was made in india, but not made in america and that company happens to ship any of the products to other countries. by the bway, the manufacture of those products creates jobs. made in america would not be allowed under the markey amendment because you couldn't make it in america if you shipped it there as well. exports would no longer be allowed under the amendment. you shut all the ports down in the united states because you couldn't export products anymore. soap. shoes.

footballs. lipstick. eyeglasses. bandages. no longer can be made in america if they're exported to another country. of course under mr. markey's amendment it does have this exception. the president may provide for waivers. so let's see what kind of dictatorial power that would give to the president of the united states. let's see how he's handled waivers in the past. we had a hearing on the scandal of the obamacare waivers. over 1,400 different organizations went to the white house secretly and they got a waiver from parts of obamacare from the president. now, i have been going throughout my district, every small business i ask anybody in the room who's ever had a waiver from obamacare? i have yet to have one person in my district who got a wraifer from the president. who did get the waivers? seiu, aarp, afl/cio, they went secretly to the white house and they got a waiver. they were able to get their waiver from the president.plead.

they probably had to commit to support obamacare to get a waiver from obamacare. what an irony that is. all the regular folks have to live by obamacare. but select crony people got a waiver. look at solyndra. we have seen how that turns out. doesn't end well for the american taxpayer. look at boeing. you know, white house basically told boeing unless they use union workers they can't build a plant in south carolina. that's how the president uses waivers. so under this amendment if you make products in america, and you happen to do good and find markets elsewhere where you can sell them and create more jobs in america you can't do it under this amendment unless you cut the secret deal with the president. this is the height of crony capitalism and the height of

what's wrong with our economy right now. yet, under this amendment you would not be able to export any of the pruroducts on the list i you make them in america. no longer would you be able to have made in america stamped anymore. >> the gentleman's time expired. does anybody on the minority side wish to speak on their own? do we have to listen to markey one more time? gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i'm glad -- i heard our colleague from massachusetts give those of us from texas, to louisiana, to oppose it. let me start out by saying we've produced steel in our mporthe i minnesota. are we going to announce that we can't export steel? i have this battle sometimes in my own caucus that chemicals and refined products are manufacturingand our goal in ou to have manufacturing capability

here and so we can export to the world. we h granted, louisiana and texas has much of them. i don't mind sharing them. if somebody else wants a refinery i'd help you why would we say that you can't export a product that's produced in our country? we want all the natural gas that we want, we have a glut and we have to begin to export it or use it for other things. whether it be use it for transportation fuel, more utility companies hopefully will go to natural gas because it's the cheapest available. i guess in almost my lifetime. but this aenlts -- amendment, i don't agree with the bill itself. but this is a bad amendment. because it takes away manufacturing capability to export. on our side of the aisle, steny

hoyer has made the lead make it in america, manufacturing. refine products and chemicals are manufacturing. up until the high prices of natural gas, chemicals was one of our biggest export items. and those are jobs that are not only in my district, but all over the country. actually pennsylvania has chemical jobs, new jersey. we just don't share the wealth with our refinery jobs as much. but refining is manufacturing. my fear years ago is that we had countries including venezuela in the '90s who wanted to build refineries to export to our country. just think if we would have agreed to that in the 1990s. a bunch of us together in congress opposed it. chavez doesn't want to send us cruise o crude oil. what if we depended on the jet fuel from venezuela?

why would we want those production capabilities, produce all you can in our own country and yet send it overseas. those of you who may know we have great ice cream, called blue bell. we eat all we can and export the rest. that's what with we do with the refined products. so this is definitely a bad amendment. you know, i don't think they're going to send that crude oil to the -- to the gulf coast to export it. >> the gentleman yield? >> only to my colleague from oklahoma. >> thank you, congressman. >> we speak the same language. >> i understand. what do you think would happen to our refining industry here if it didn't have an export market? you know, because when you refine a barrel of oil as you know you're talking about, there's a lot of by-products. that's something that can't even be used in the united states because of our punitive environmental regulations. what would happen to them in a tough environment anyway if they

did not have this export market? >> well, i appreciate that. you're reclaiming my time. we have a number of the refineries i represent that export diesel to countries in the world who we produce lower sulfur diesel and we pro -- we send that overseas. it's great export market. but a good example, you know, the by-product of a refinery is petroleum coke. i have mountains of petroleum coke in our district. it's shipped overseas. if this amendment were part of the law, would we have to burn that petroleum coke? it burns very dirty. i was hoping to use that in our country instead of exporting it, but we can't. if you come to my area you'll see mountains of petroleum coke, that's getting exported to other countries where they can burn it but we can't. >> what would happen if your community couldn't export those

products? >> well, we have a great market, but we have to recognize why would we not export? the balance of trade is a problem in the last 20 or 30 years. why would we not export a refined product? just like instead of buying keyboards from china, i would rather have them be made here and send them to china. why would we take out refined products from being an export market? it makes no sense at all. >> amen. >> i'd be glad to yield somebody. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i find it fascinating around here, oftentimes the campaigns and politics are criticizing people who are sending jobs to china and opec and then we are buying goods from them. now, if you wait long enough, everything seems to reverse itself and now we're criticizing those who make things in the

u.s. and want to esell to other countries. let me name some things of the things we make and export. medical den and the and farm suit cal device, yes, fuel oil, organic oil, and telecommunications equipment. the list goes on and on. and my friend from texas was pointing out, there's a great concern for our trade deficit. now, trade deficit means we sell you something, we sell you something, whoever sells the least loses. and let's look at some numbers with china. in 2011, last year, we had a $272 billion trade deficit. and in 2010, a $273 billion trade deficit. in 2009, a $226 billion trade deficit. how about at the european union, in 2011 with $89 billion, 2010, $79 billion. how about opec? in 2011, $118 billion trade

deficit. 2010, $95 billion. 2009, $62 billion. 2008 when we were buying a lot of oil from them, $178 billion trade deficit. now, this is pretty amazing to me that we have an opportunity to make something and sell things to them rather than us sending more money to them is an opportunity for us to grow jobs. now i'd be particularly concerned that massachusetts is touting that its number three export market is china. maybe what -- you might want to test out this amendment is to start off preventing massachusetts from exporting to china and the a u to see how it fares when they have to import more than they export. in this country we make things and we sell to other countries and that helps create jobs. what we refine oil and sell diesel fuel to other countries, that is exporting things and bringing back money so we can have jobs.

when we make steel, when we make so many other products, we sell it, we get the money. we have our jobs here. now, i am really tired also of in addition to buying products from other countries of also sending them the blood and treasure to protect the battlefields. i'm particularly frustrated because when i go down to bethesda hospital, and i'm over there in the navy treating our wounded warriors and i've got to see the kids with their arms and legs and faces blown off, because we're protecting opec oil fields. we have an opportunity to have oil from north dakota and montana and so many other states in this country. having our own energy independence. we're setting up this argument about we shouldn't be allowed to export, we shouldn't be allowed to lower the overall cost of oil, we should consider to have opec with the stranglehold around us for oil and

manufacturing? while we send our kids over there to die to protect their fields? please, mr. chairman, let's have some sanity in this chamber and in this house and this committee. understand that all of these costs and all these numbers peal in comparison to what we see. from sending thousands of soldiers over there to protect middle east oil. we have an opportunity to have tens of thousands of jobs with our oil. with north american oil. with north american workers. with north american laborers and operating engineers and welders and steam fitters. what about them? what about american jobs? i have had it up to here with protecting opec. i have had it up to here with continuing to argue about jobs going off to china. we have an opportunity to do something today. and instead we're saying we can't make things here? we can't manufacture things here? we can't drill for things here? we can't fine for things here and send them to other countries? it is about time, it is about

time that we pause and understood that what makes america great is our ability to make things our strength of our military, the ingenuity and inventiveness of americans. if we somehow draw this line around our borders and say we're not going to sell anything to the world anymore, we will suffocate ourselves with breathing our own air, we will continue this trade deficit which is destroying our economy. so i urge my colleagues if for no other reason than saving the lives of americans who have to go overseas and protect oil fields from opec, vote no on this amendment and keep america strong. >> gentleman's time has expired. i'm recognizing in the order of seniority, unless your accent is similar to mine. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, is recognized. >> are you saying my accent is

similar to yours? >> i'm saying seniority. the floor is yours. >> i'm glad that my good friend mr. scalise and mr. murphy got off their chest. i don't know how obamacare got in the discussion but i'm sure you feel better. i don't understand the markey amendment but i understand why he's offering it. one of the most unfortunate parts of the entire debate the whole time we're having is it is the hyperbole that we have been hearing that this pipeline is going to give us domestic security and we'll no longer need to buy from the outside sources because we have all this oil coming from canada that we're age to use. we know that's not true. i support exporting and i understand the whole process. we have been telling the american people that somehow this keystone pipeline is going to lower the gasoline prices. where everybody knows that's fantasy.

this oil is priced on a world market. we told people this is hundreds of thousands of jobs for americans. well, we know that's not true. there's jobs for americans and there's construction jobs but the number -- this huge number. then lastly, we tell them 75% of the steel and this project is coming from north america. that's far from true too. i think what mr. markey's done here, the end result i think is bad thing and why i won't support his amendment, is to try to point out that we need this this entire debate is a little bit of truth in advertising. you know, it's enough to be for this pipeline if it can be built in an environmentally sound way and i favor building it once we cross those ts and dot those is. i'm not for any 30 day fast track or the attempt of what my friend mr. terry is trying to do