approved once that all the safety and environmen i support that. i believe there's some good construction jobs by people in organized labor. it makes sense. let's not kid ourselves. that oil is going down to the gulf. it's going to get refined in the tax free zones and a lot is going to leave the country and go other places. that's the way it works. there's nothing wrong with that. there's nothing illegal with that. let's not make americans think we're somehow energy independent because of the keystone pipeline. when gasoline prices go up, let's not delude americans if the keystone pipeline would have fast tracked that their gasoline prices wouldn't have gone up. the two have nothing to do with each other. if we're saying that something has 75% of north american steel in that, we're able to certify that's so. so there's a lot of good reasons to be for this pipeline once

it's approved and go through the process the right way. the markey amendment because i believe it's more an illustration of let's have truth in this debate than what what we'd actually do is detrimental. i think we ought to give the american people true expectations and not send this as a cure all/end all to all the problems in the united states. i would yield the amount of time to any of the colleagues who might want to take advantage of a minute and 30 seconds. mr. markey? >> gentleman yields back his time. it's acceptable under the rules to yield back. >> and i will if nobody on my side wants the time. thank you. >> the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are some truisms as my friend frompittsburgh just

mentioned. one is that tom brady can't throw and can't catch the bleeping ball. and two, that in 2011, we imported 11.8 million barrels per day of oil or refined gasoline. it is also true that this pipeline when built, when started would supplant -- or produce 700 million barrels a day up to over a million. barrels per day. >> 700,000 barrels per day. >> what did i say? 700,000. so what the reality here is that the refineries along the path, whether it's kansas, illinois, oklahoma, texas, louisiana, have

contracts to purchase this. each one of those refineries can refine "x" amount of barrels per day. if they're getting it from a reliable source in canada and not from saudi arabia or venezuela, then that adds to our national energy security. because it's a reliable source. we don't have to worry about the number of tankers coming from venezuela today or the mood of hugo chavez and whether or not he'll allow that oil to come to the united states versus china. so there's no doubt here that there is a level of energy security here. there's also no doubt that as this oil comes through the pipeline to the variety of refineries that they will as in

every barrel that's provided to a refinery, only a portion of that barrel can be made into fuel that we use daily in our vehicles. the other parts of that like diesel, excess diesel is exported to europe. we have already heard from several of my colleagues that there's other by-products as well. so this is -- the markey amendment, i would submit is one of those type of killer amendments that if this would become law it basically means that you can't use this oil from canada which is really the basis of the environmental argument here, to just not use heavy crude or any fossil fuel. that's what this amendment is all about. i would encourage us to put this

in perspective as mr. doyle has said. it will provide job, it will provide energy security for us. so let's go for that. i yield. >> thank you for yielding. i want to make a couple of comments. we also remember our experience on the alaskan north slope. alaskan north slope oil originally had an export ban and the ban was controversial and was ultimately lifted by president clinton in 1996. in a gao definitely -- after the export ban lifted, found out that domestic production increased because that ban inhibited exploration. so i think that an export ban would really be doing the exact opposite of what we hoped it would do and then i would also refer once again to the memo

from carmine, the deputy assistant secretary at the united states department of energy, and responding to the study by philip verlager, and everyone said, oh, that oil will be all exported. well, he basically shoots holes in the article. and he specifically said from their analysis and their being the department of energy they concluded that very little if any of this oil coming into the u.s. would be exported. that there really was no real basis for that. but even if oil is exported, i for one think it might be beneficial because of our huge trade deficit. and, you know, let's let the free market work. so i just wanted to point out those two things and i appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me.

>> does the gentleman yield back? >> mr. chairman. gentle lady from illinois, ms. schakowsky is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to agree with mr. doyle and say let's be honest about this legislation. it's called the north american energy access act and at this point in the debate it seems to be called the north american energy export act. that suddenly we have changed the conversation from how important it is to have energy security and energy independence and now how great it is to export. so at the very least we have to have an honest conversation about what this is about. i also wanted to comment on the gentleman from pennsylvania who talked about national security and this picture of the young men and women dying over the protection of oil. well, last friday, the sub committee on energy and power heard testimony from retired

brigadier general anderson, and he was responsible for getting the fuel supplies to getting the fuel supplies to the troops. i strongly oppose the keystone xl pipeline because it will degrade the national security. the pipeline keeps our great nation addicted to oil, a dependence makes us strategically and operationally vulnerable. unquote. so we have to be honest about the national security and about whether we're about energy access and or exporting. i want to yield the balance of my time to mr. markey. >> they thank the gentle lady. i hear the great concern about restrictions on export of oil from the united states. that's the free market they say. so i'm looking forward to next week when each of you can support the bill from don young that's coming out on to the

house floor which will open up the arctic refuge to drilling. but it also contains in it the young amendment that bans export of that oil. out of the united states. so i'm looking forward to all you have voting on that next week and seeing how many of you vote against -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> let me finish. so you have agreed to an export ban of that, but opposing this one. i'm looking forward to each of you next week trying to resolve the basically conflicting export free market principles on the same day. now, let me just move forward theno it says no refined produc e exported. products are, they're diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, residual

fuel oil, butane, kerosene. that's the definition of refined product. that cannot be exported. that has to stay here in the united states. what is not a refined product? pantyhose, toothbrushes, footballs, antihistamines, steel, which is produced using oil, with -- which is produced here in the united states. those are not refined products. why do i make the amendment? i make the amendment because i want a low price for the oil. for toothbrushes, for steel. for pantyhose. for anyone that makes that product here in the united states. why do i make the amendment? that oil sent overseas that will give other countries an ability to have this oil. you know, the gas industry simultaneously right now has seven licenses to export natural

gas from our country. want to hear another big number? the price of natural gas in the united states right now is half the price of europe. that helps every manufacturer in our country. the price of natural gas in america is four times lower than . helps all of american industry, all of american consumers with much lower prices in the manufacture of steel, of pantyhose, of everything else and it is a big competitive advantage. what does the natural gas and oil industry want? they want to build terminals all around our country to create a world price for natural gas. that hurts us. we are the saudi arabia of natural gas. what is this all about? it's part of the same story. how do we export the oil that comes down from canada, through the united states into port arthur, texas, and send it and the world? the world price of oil. great for texas, great for louisiana. great for oklahoma.

bad for every other state that has a manufacturing base that uses the oil to create products, which we want to export around the world as they use oil to make it here in the united states. no problem with exporting that. that's what the debate is all about. do we keep this precious natural resource here? >> gentleman's time has expired. i'm going to recognize myself, but before i do that i want to read your amendment because you mischaracterized it, i think. it says the federal energy regulatory commission shall require every permit issued under this act to ensure that any crude oil transported by the keystone pipeline and all others will be entered into the domestic commerce for final disposition. as i read your amendment it pertains not only to refined products, but also to crude oil

and bitumenin. you might want to check that. i'll recognize myself for five years in opposition to the markey amendment. first of all, i think we need to realize that there are two components to this. there's the crude oil component and there's the refined product component. on the crude oil side it would make no sense at all for the originators of the oil, i.e., the canadians to ship it down to the gulf coast to export the crude oil. if you're going to export -- if you're not going to use the oil in canada, you're going to use -- you're going to export it the most efficient way and that would not be to send it 1,500 miles through the united states to the gulf coast. as a matter of fact, the united states is importing about 9 million barrels of oil per day and we export very little crude

oil. less than 50,000 barrels a day with the most recent numbers i have seen. you don't have to have a prohibition against exporting crude oil when you have a company importing 9 million barrels a day. and number two, the host country if they want to export it and not use it in the united states -- if in their own country, they will export it to another country. on the refined products, as mr. green has pointed out, and mr. shimkus and others, it is a good thing, not a bad thing that we actually have a refinery and petrochemical industry that's competitive enough that we can actually export some of our products. they're creating and maintaining jobs in the united states. 74% of all the crude that comes into this country is used in

this country. that's the latest statistic. but more and more we are shipping some of our refined products overseas because we have the competitive industry to do so. we're primarily shipping them to the european market. our refineries are more competitive. we have invested over $300 billion in the last 15 or 20 years and we're able to refine low sulfur diesel as mr. green pointed out. some of the distill lat fuels and we can be competitive in the european market. that's a good thing, not a bad thing. the gentle lady from the virgin islands was talking to me recently, a big refinery in her region is shutting down. i think it's a 500,000 barrel per day refinery. i believe it's a little older refinery, they're not as

competitive. as demand for some of the refined products has declined in the united states which is their primary market, they're not competitive enough to ship into the european markets. so it's going to cost her territory quite a few very good jobs. so if mr. markey wants to offer an amendment to change the young amendment on the floor next week, i'll support it and vote for it. i think maybe he's only putting that on there to try to get some democrat votes. >> will the gentleman yield? >> briefly. >> i would think that the entire republican majority on this committee would make the amendment against the young -- export to oil. that's your position. you don't want any restrictions. >> if you'll go to the rules committee and i ask for an amendment to strike that portion of the young amendment or the young bill, i'll support you on that. i happen to agree with you, that you shouldn't have restrictions

agree.product that part of the young bill i agree. i don't agree with the drilling in the arctic, but if we are it should stay there the same way as if a pipe is coming through here we should keen it here. >> we have aitiv refinery industry because we have invested billions of dollars and there's slightly excess capacity. they're operating 85 to 90% of the boiler plate capacity. i think it makes some sense if they're competitive and we can export and keep the manufacturing, i.e. refinery jobs in the united states. we don't put a restriction on movies that are made in hollywood from being exported overseas. so if we have an industry that's actually competitive, i don't see a reason to put a

restriction on -- >> does the gentleman yield? >> in one second, sure. >> big difference is that oil is the reason we're over in the straits of hormuz. oil is the reason we're over there. that's the big reason between that and toothbrushes. oil is the number one security risk to our country. >> we're actually importing less crude oil than we were. my time has expired.? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think mr. markey understands that his amendment is not going to pass. but as mr. doyle said it is instructive and gets us into a real debate. and maybe it's economic heresy that supply is not going to determine price that'sreity. i have already indicated i'm for increased domestic production.

i'm for the keystone so we still have the producers in north american as opposed to the middle east. i understand that concept. and it is an important one. but i have members on the other side depicting the oil industry much like it was depicted in the movie "giant" with elizabeth taylor and rock hudson and james dean. it's changed. it's totally different. what i'm hearing over there, i'm just assuming this because i have never been in the oil and gas business, but if transcanada is producing the oil are we saying that they're going to put it in this pipeline and then they're going to find some end user wherever it's going to be stored or whatever? my understanding is thathe port that oil to whoever is the highest bidder based on global market prices. i said this last week at the

hearing, but unless something has changed drastically from last may, may drastically from last may, may 15th "dallas morning news," story by concern call, some 70% of contracts for future oil delivery are now bought by financial speculators, largely big investment banks and hedge fund who is never take control of the oil. they just flip the contract for a quick profit. only about 30% of oil contracts are bought by a purchaser that actually intends to use the oil such as an airline. that's according to commodity futures trading commission which regulates trade in those contracts. michael mcmasters, a professional wall street investor testified before congress repeatedly that speculators are pushing prices well beyond what supply and demand warrant. that is the modern marketplace in america today. now i will say that it will

supply us with oil produced in north america and that obviously will provide some sort of national security to my good friend ed markey. i disagree. i this it will. but it will not supply with us a more reasonably priced gallon of gasoline at the pump. it's not going to happen. and this is my last year in congress but i would imagine all of you that will be returning will be in this room when gasoline is $4 to $5 a gallon trying to explain why the keystone pipeline, which eventually was permitted and built is not producing an affordable gallon of gasr, wch draining our economy and will continue to drain you're economy with high fuel prices. i'm going to share mr. markey's basic tenet in what he's trying to show. it's not truly a question of dependency on foreign oil that is the central question.

it is a dependency on oil itself. way beyond the foreseeable future. i acknowledge i think for the next 20 years fossil fuel is an absolutely essential mix as a transportation fuel and otherwise. but what it's doing and what it's taking aweffo that has bee led by individuals as mr. waxman and mr. markey to find alternative fuel sources. but you don't join mr. markey in that endeavor either. when we say efficiency, cafe standard, you're not ever going to beat mr. markey on that. efficiency conservation, you're not going to be with mr. markey on that approximately alternatives, you're not going to be with mr. markey on ythld? >> my concern is we're regressing. we're going backwards rather than forward. and i know that you can say

other countries may not follow our lead but that's not what should determine what we do in this country when we have the ability to be leaders. soap i think i won't be -- of course i won't vote for this amendment but i appreciate my colleague from massachusetts making a really important point that i think you'll be able too revert to in future testimony and hearings in this exact room years from now when you're trying to explain what didn't happen that you promised here . >> gentleman yields back. >> i want the counsel's opinion, does the markey amendment apply to crude oil and refined products or just refined products? >> both. >> the gentleman from california. >> could you elaborate on that, please? >> the markey amendment says it applies to -- that the condition applies to any crude oil enrichment transported by

keystone xl and all refined products whose origin was via importation of crude oil or bishman. >> so that means that the steel industry that purchases the oil, the united states steel produces this oil -- purchase thez oil, the tooth brush industry purchases this oushl the football industry, that they purchase i mak with, it steel o whatever, that can be exported under the markey amendment. is that not correct? >> i'm not sure that that's clear either because the clause that follows this says it will be entered into domestic commerce for final disposition because final disposition is not defined. the product and where that line ends with the products, what happens with it is not clear.

for instance, a refined product that then those chemicals were used to make a product that then it would prohibit selling that product overseas without more clarity on what final disposition is. >> so when the tooth brush factory purchases the oil to make the tooth brushes, is there anything that would in this amendment that then in any way restricts the export of those tooth brushes? >> i think that the amendment is unclear because that -- to the extent those chemicals or whatever the product isha and let's presume the tooth brush is made here, the final disposition if you wand to sell that tooth brush then overseas without better clarity on final disposition, this would prohibit selling that tooth brush to somewhere outside the country. >> you don't make a tooth brush from crude oil, you make plastic

and use plastic. so the markey amendment would prohibit the plastic from, exported but it wouldn't prohibit plastic being made into a tooth brush and the tooth brush being exported because that's not a refined product under his issue that there clri toothbrush is made from plastic. is final disposition the selling of the selling of the truth brush overseas? what is the final disposition? >> i'm just in what we find a refined petroleum product. >> my intention here is that the oil can be used by the plastic industry in the united states.

at that point it is then free toing exported across the rest of the world. >> that is the intent of the amendment. as far as i'm concerned, that is what the amendment in fact does accomplish. >> the gentleman may want to withdraw his amendment because hat's not the way it reads.abou that, we're going to go to mr. bill bray for more debate. >> let me respond to my friend. i ask him to take a look at my bill that has been co-sponsored

by a democrat that addresses a true green fuel and that is giving equal tax and blender benefits to a true green fuel, algae fuel that, is now being given to a fuel that some claim are green but some of us question. >> fact, our slogan in california now is algae's green and the fact is you can talk about corn is yellow. i'd challenge you to look at the fact congress continues to subsidize one form of technology and specifically excludes the most promises threshold we have out there that everybody so pp won't take the time to correct it. we'll talk about that later. let me say, mr. chairman, it is interesting that i was looking that the obama administration

offered $34 billion to the all the owe industry in this country in grants and loan guarantees and a lot of other. we're not talking about giving permits. we're talking about giving money and when the administration gave money to the auto industry, i loans that required that of the autos only be sold in the united states. even though the sold that we were going to make america accessible to new fuel efficient automobiles. but when w that package, the obama administration did not place the condition on the auto industry for $34 billion that this amendment is proposing to place on this pipeline. now, look, we're talking about regulations here. the whole issue that we should -- on bothsides of the aisle recognize that we talk about energy independence, we talk about job creation. let as somebody who spent 16 years