should not remake walls because of the pipeline. i don't want to mess up things along the way. if this amendment passes, it will be doubly worse. eminent domain has been used since records were cutting across nebraska, and private entities have that right for a minute domain. if the landowner does not like it, you go to the courthouse and oppose it. there is a way to deal with, and this bill and this amendment would make it much worse for the rest of the country. >> reclaiming my time. the gentleman from california? >> we're setting a precedent. this is a precedent that will not only apply to oil lines but also what we do with easements for transmissions. as my colleagues from massachusetts has said the, the

greatest barrier for renewal bowls to get to cities -- renewables to get to cities is getting to the cities. you will slow down the process of making the link which between where the energy to be created and consumed. the wind generation and the central wind belt, and i'm sorry we cannot have a map to show the greatest potential of one generation to where the demand is. you follow this precedent, there are people who will not be able to invest in wind generation because they will know this government will not back up the ability to transmit that clean energy. be careful where you go with this, guys. you may be aiming at the canadians, but what happens with our strategies in the u.s. when we set a precedent that the use of eminent domain will not be allowed for natural gas or clean and she? clean energy has a transmission problem usually three times

longer than traditional energy. this is an issue we should work together with, not setting this. . >> and to redefine, this was for crude oil, natural gas, and refined product. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentle lady from california is recognized. >> in looking at the amendment and the nature of the substitute, called the second page, towards the end, it says while route modification is under consideration in nebraska, the permit applicant may begin pipeline construction in all states other than nebraska. given this, how does it come to be that the company is issuing letters of eminent domain to people if there is not even air

route in nebraska? -- if there is now evena route and nebraska? >> i think they're looking for provisions outside of the breast and much of the route is already secured by the pipeline company. >> which comes first, letters of eminent domain or a route for the pipelines to the people know where it is going to go? and then the route moves accordingly. >> the route is defined, both in the application and the final out of our mental impact statement. the route, except for a segment of the nebraska route, is defined. >> but it is not all defined, correct? >> a segment within the breast is not defined, but the rest of the pipeline is. -- a segment of the pipeline is not defined, but the rest of the

pipeline is. >> but the issue according to testimony given was with landowners. i was not here for the testimony, but i did listen. at that need to get a life -- i listened to the tv is on tv. >> the landowner who testified was from nebraska. with the application, you the board worked with the agencies, you know where the route is, then they negotiate. but the governor asked transcanada to move it off the sand hills. that letter and the testimonies on the old route. that is what is causing the confusion. there is no new route because the permit has been denied and nobody knows if they're supposed to move forward to determine a new route. that is why we have the specifics about the memorandum

of understanding and carving out specifically nebraska from this so that to proceed to determine a route, at which time the pipeline company will sit down and negotiate and then use nebraska law if necessary. >> i appreciate that. when does nebraska come up with its route? >> when the president denied a permit to the pipeline, according to the governor's office, they were within a week to 10 days of announcing a new site to begin the environmental. they have not announced the site because they do not know if they're moving forward or not. so what could be any time, but the need to know which agency they work with. under the past application, the state department said they were going to work with the state of nebraska. then when nebraska sent them a memorandum of understanding, there refused to recognize it.

-- they refused to recognize it. that all right, thank you. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. i believe that all time has expired on this. all those in favor will say i. all those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. mr. waxman and i have been conferring and we have come to an agreement that we will continue in our absence as we both go to the conference on the tax extender bill. however, we have also concurred that we will not have recorded votes before we come back, no which would be somewhere probably in the neighborhood of 12:15, if we finish at noon.

at this point, i will recognize the gentleman from massachusetts to cop is the amendment. -- to call up his amendment. >> offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. >> the adjustment of massachusetts is recognized for five minutes and the staff will circulate the amendment. >> thank you. the keystone pipeline would carry some of the world's dirtiest oil right through the middle of our country. whether it is the carbon pollution that spews into the sky or the oil spills that could foul drinking water, there is no dispute the environmental consequences attracts to the attached to transcanada's pipeline will be grave. but we have been told repeatedly it will be worth it. we're told it will lower gas prices, even though the transcanada project would rise

because it could charge more for keystone oil and the gulf than a dozen the midwest. wilbon told the pipeline will create tens of thousands of new jobs, even though it turns out the number of new jobs has been grossly inflated. only about 5000, 6000 temporary construction jobs will be created. in a particularly egregious play on american patriotism, and american fears, we have also been told the oil coming from this pipeline would enable us to reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly middle eastern or let american nations. last month, the canadian prime minister steven harper even said, "when you look at the iranians threatening to block the streets of hormuz, i think this illustrates how critical it is that supply for the united states beat north american." this appears to be a complete

fiction. under this bill, there are no guarantees that even a drop of the tar sands oil or fuel will stay in this country. this is because many of the refineries were the keystone crude will be sent plan to re- export the refine the fools. for instance, valero states that plans to refine the canadian crude at the same facility is building in port arthur because doing so beverages its "-- leverage is its "export logistics'," and says that growing diesel demand isn't export opportunities for u.s. refineries. a joint refining venture between shell and the saudi arabian oil co. is another of transcanada's port arthur, texas, customers. the rest of their customers include a french company, tw

canadian companies, and a multinational venture based in the netherlands. is not just a regular money making opportunity depending on what they're seeking. port arthur, texas, is a foreign trade zone. when these refineries re-export the diesel and other fuels, they're making using keystone oil, that will not even have to pay united states taxes. hear that again -- they will not have to pay united states taxes. lest anyone think that transamerica -- transcanada, rather, is in the re-export business, in december when i asked president of transcanada whether he would agree to ensure that oil and refined that you'll stay here in this country instead every exporting them, he said, no, sitting right there. so that is the plan in this

republican bill -- sneed the pipeline into the country, provide the oil, then sneak the diesel fuel right back out of the country. yesterday, the gentleman from nebraska said that part sands oil could replace 1.5 million, 2 million barrels of oil per day that we currently import from the persian gulf. even if the keystone xl pipeline was going to transport more than 630,000 barrels of tar sands oil, the idea that all of the keystone of oil will stay in this country under this bill is just a fantasy. make no mistake, this bill is not about energy security. it is not about jobs. it is about oil company profits, plain and simple. this bill turns the united states into a middle man it from a multinational deal between canada, south america, europe, and china. the republican slogan last year

was drill here, drill now, pay less. now we are letting canada drilled there, she appeared, and reexport there. also that we in the united states will have to pay more both in money at the gas pump and cost to the environment. my amendment insurers that of this pipeline is legislated, the oil and any fuels' made using it will stay here to benefit americansh. ere. -- here. my amendment allows the president to waive this requirement only to be shown if the export of the will and fuels will not increase our dependents on foreign oil. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> who seeks recognition? the gentleman from illinois. >> i like my map better. just because it shows all of the

pipelines that we have correctly in this country. i have said numerous times in the committee the keystone pipeline ends right outside of my district. my refinery did a $2 billion expansion during the lowest economic times, why? so they could ship it down south? no, to refine it. there is a better return on that assessment for refined product and selling a product than just moving the bulk commodity as it exists. let's just take my friends to date for what it was. so what if the crude oil goes on the world market. so what? don't we understand supply and demand? but we understand commodity products? the more supply of a commodity product on the market, the lower the price of demand stays the same. it is very simple.

my friend's map had it -- why would we ship crude oil down to the gulf coast, then ship it to china? where is harper today? harper is in china. why? because he is trying to cut a deal to move the pipeline west versus south. would that not be a better plan for the chinese? and we know the great environmental record of the chinese and we know the great record of moving crude oil across the seas. i would still say that a pipeline is the most secure, the safest, environmentally sound, and it is proven by the hundreds of thousands of miles of product that we ship by pipeline everyday. whether it is crude oil, whether it is natural gas, whether it is refined product. i challenge you, visit the

refinery. look at the tanker trucks that are rolling in. there are none. it is all coming in by pipeline, it is all going out by pipeline. i would encourage people to look at the bloomberg article from today, february 6. the american gaining energy independence, which is always what we talk about in this committee. would not be great to get to energy independent? part of this article, it mentions stepped-up oil output and restrained consumption will lessen the chance for imports, cutting the nation's trade as a pet retreat deficit at buttressing the dollar. isn't that good? i would say that is good. that is the chief energy economist at deutsche bank in washington. the keystone xl will help us

bring our crude oil products from the fields in north dakota. instead of trucking it, we can use the fields in north dakota using the keystone pipeline. north dakota, the center of the oil transformation, is now the fourth largest oil-producing states behind texas, alaska, and california. california is a big oil- producing state. while u.s. consumers would still be susceptible to surges in global oil prices, we would send some of that cash to north dakota rather than saudi arabia. i think that is 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, the demand stays the same, the price is lower. that is true for crude oil, corn, beans, pork. that is true for any commodity product. you increase the supply, demand stays the same, the prices go down. even if you accept his premise, oil going on the world market is a good thing. more oil on the world market as a good thing. i would argue the better thing is for our refineries to take the crude oil and refined into various products -- jet fuel, diesel, gasoline, asphalt -- all the things they break the barrel of crude oil down into, and that is better for our country at lower prices to ship to us. so please reject my colleague's amendment. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you.

i want to yield my time to mr. markey. >> thank you. so, here is the problem, the gentleman from illinois is saying that we should just get over it. that this oil pipeline will come down from alberta, go right through the middle of our country, and 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 another american consumers will be benefited, even though export strategy will be to send that will to china or argentina or to send it to europe. and somehow or other, our consumers will benefit from that. because that is the law of supply and demand.

the problem is, and we are late in the game realizing this, we play under opec's law of supply and demand. their law is -- here is what they say, we supply the oil, opec, you pay what we demand. any time the price goes to low, we go to vienna, we have another meeting, we lower the total and the price oil, goes higher and higher. the story not across the country says by memorial day, the price of gasoline could be $4, $5 and some parts of the country. here is a great opportunity for us. the prime minister of china -- the prime minister of canada, rather, says on the one hand this will be great that our oil

will be north american oil and united states. on the other hand, when we ask transcanada, will you agree that the oil stays in the united states, they say, oh, no. no, no, no. then you read the other things they say, and it is fairly clear we're just going to be a conduit going right through the middle of north america. what is the problem with that? the problem is we do not control the price of oil with such a small amount of oil. but say it is 1 million, 2 million barrels per day going into the global market. for the united states, it would be a lot of additional oil, just for our markets. why is that important? here is a fact. last year, for the first time in 62 years, but the united states was a net exporter of oil

products. in 2011, we were a net exporter of oil. you want to hear a second issue? >> with the gentleman yield? >> just let me finish. our number one export last year was oil products. so i think that is infuriating ordinary people, who are looking at $4, $5 per gallon gasoline. that this policy of exporting oil and increasing the amount with this bill passing today will absolutely infuriated the american driver. in fact, america has not exported 100 million barrels of oil over the last seven months. and this bill would just make as a conduit, to make it possible to export even more as the price of gasoline and home heating oil is skyrocketing inside our country.

so what ever you do, let's play it straight, the straits of hormuz. let's just make it clear, that without my amendment that says the oil stays here, that this pipeline will not to a single thing. it will not break our dependence upon imported oil from the middle east. because you were not giving us this guarantee, and canada will not give us this guarantee. so prime minister harper, here is the strategy -- they will fly to china, talk to china about would you like our oil, or they will come to the united states and say, can you build a pipeline through the data states so we can -- through the united states so we can sell the oil to china. it is going to china, south america, europe, under any circumstances, like to pass my amendment to keep it here. that is the canadian plan, but you understand? that is their plan. by the way, if the come from

louisiana or texas, vote against my amendment. i'm telling you this right now. texas, oklahoma, the louisiana, vote no. but any other parts of the united states, i don't know what your thinking. this oil is not going to the united states. it is going to other countries in the world. that the gentleman's time has expired. -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. i will ask my friend from massachusetts a question. we all know that you were a businessman, ice-cream at red sox, fenway park, correct? >> this is true. >> did you only say i will only sell ice-cream to people who would eat it right in front of you, or did to let them do whatever they wanted with the ice-cream? >> no, i -- >> did you have been eat in my presence requirement to buy your ice cream? >> i hadn't eaten in the united

states ruled. you had to eat it within at red sox nation. >> i just wanted to know. >> would he sell to yankees fans? >> i was his wondering if he had restrictions. >> let me say this, there was no world ice-cream. i was not afraid of mr. softee. they were right there, they were american. i knew i had to keep my prices lower if i was going to unload my chocolate. >> i think my colleague from texas for yielding. i hope my colleagues from the wind when it is not blaming the entire oil industry just because the super bowl was played at lucas oil stadium on sunday. i think there's a confusion between all oil and refined oil.

i think that it's to the heart of the floor of this amendment. if you read this amendment from my colleague from massachusetts, you could call this the ship more jobs to china's commitment. because under this amendment, no american company would be able to manufacture product -- right now, there are over 6000 products manufactured using oil byproducts. none of those products would be able to be exported to any foreign country. so you've literally chew -- we have a chart of some of the 6000 products that are manufactured using oil. in this list, you have car tires, bicycle tires, motorcycle helmets, dashboards for cars, mops, roofing equipment, water pipes. clothing, no clothing would be up to be manufactured in america

because of this amendment. heart valves. actually use petroleum byproducts to make heart valves. no part bouts under this amendment would be able to be manufactured in america. toothbrushes, football helmets, even crowns, life jackets, parachutes. if you have a parachute, it have to set up a " made in china" under this amendment. antihistamines. there are a lot of products that help save lives. aspirin use is petroleum. one of the byproducts in manufacturing aspirin. no aspirin would be allowed to be manufactured in america. purses, deodorant, pantyhose, toolboxes. you cannot go to work with toolboxes anymore if it is made in america because it contains a by product of petroleum.

you could buy the product if it was made in india, but not if it was made in america and the company happens to ship any of those products they make to other countries. finally, the manufacturing of those products creates american jobs. made in america would no longer be allowed under the markey amendment because would not be up to make it in america if you shipped to another country as well. you could only sell it in america. exports would no longer be allowed under this amendment. think about that, shut down the ports and the u.s. because it cannot export products. shoes, footballs, lipstick, eyeglasses, bandages no longer can be made in america if they are exported to another country. under this amendment, it has this exception. the president may provide for waivers. let's see what kind of dictatorial power that would give to the president. but see how he has handled waivers in the past. we had a hearing on the scandal of the obama-care waivers.

1400 different organizations went to the white house, secretly, behind closed doors to get a waiver from parts of obama-care from the president. i have been going through my district. every small business i talked to, ask them who has a waiver from obama-care. i get to have anyone in my district was a waiver from the president. who got them? aarp, afl-cio, all of the groups that can appear and said they need obama-care. they went secretly to the white house and got a waiver. they were able to get a waiver from the president. they had to commit to support obama-care to get a waiver from it. what an irony that is. all the regular folks have to live by obama-care, but certain select friends, chronic capitalism, they got their waiver. another great example of people using political favors to get special deals. we have seen how that turns out.

look at boeing. the white house basically told boeing unless they use union workers, they cannot build a plant in south carolina. that is how the president uses waivers. under this amendment, if you make products in america and you happen to find markets elsewhere weaken seldom and create more jobs in america, it cannot do that under this amendment unless you cut that special secret deal with the president. this is the height of crony capitalism, the height of what is wrong with our economy right now. under this amendment, you would not be up to export any of the products made, if they're made in america. if you make them in another country, that is great, but the water would be up to people have -- but no longer wish to be up to have made in america stepped on the products. >> does anybody on the minority side wished to speak? do we have to listen to the gentleman from texas is

recognized for five minutes. >> i heard my colleague from massachusetts give those of us from texas and louisiana to oppose it. let me start out by staying we produce steel in our country. we mayim port the iron ore from minnesota or we may get it from canada. are we going to now see an amendment that we can't export steel? i have this battle sometimes in my own caucus that chemicals and refined products are manufacturing. and our goal in our country is to have manufacturing capability here and so we can export to the world. we have those downstreet jobs and louisiana and texas has most of them. but i don't mind sharing them. somebody else wants a refinery i'll help you build it. but why would we say you can't export a product that is produced in our country? now, sure, we want all the gasoline we want and all the natural gas we can get but we also realize our natural gas is

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 we'll go to natural gas. because it's the cheapest available, i guess in almost my lifetime. but this amendment, like -- 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 on make it in america. manufacturing. refined products and chemicals are manufacturing. in fact, up until the high prices of natural gas in the middle of the last decade, 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 veins swale a in the 19 -- veins swale a in the 1990's that wanted to build refineries to export to our country. just think if we would have agreed to that in the 1990's. a bunch of us together as members of congress opposed it. president chavez doesn't want to send us crude oil. what if we were waiting to send the military overseas because we depend on our jet fuel from venezuela? why would we not to produce in our own country and send it overseas? and those of you who may know from texas, we have some great ice cream. we all brag about blue bell. we eat all we can and we export the rest. and that's what we can do with refined products. so this is definitely a bad amendment. i don't think they're going to send that crude oil to the -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> to export it. will the gentleman yield?

>> only to my colleague from oklahoma. >> thank you, congressman green. >> 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? because when you refine a barrel of oil, you're talking about there's a lot of byproducts. and some can't even be used here 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 and reclaiming my time. we have a number of refineries i represent that export diesel to countries in the world who we produce lower sulfur diesel. and we send that overseas. and it's a great export market. but a good example, and you know -- the product of a refinery is petroleum coke. i have mountains of petroleum coke in our district. it's shipped overseas. now, if this amendment were

part of the law, would we have to burn that petroleum coke? it burns very dirty. i was hoping we could develop a way we could use that in our own country instead of exporting it. but so far we can't. that's a byproduct. and if you come to my area, you'll see mountains of petroleum coke that are getting ready to be exported to other countries because they can burn it whereas we can't. so i agree with you. >> what would happen to those refineries in your district that can -- couldn't export those products? >> we have a great market. but we also need to realize that why would we not export? do you know our balance of trade is always been a problem? the last 20 or 30 years. why would we not export a high-end item like a refined product? just like instead of buying keyboards from china, i would rather have those keyboards made here and let's send them to china. so why would we take out refined products from being an export market? it just makes no sense at all. >> amen, brother.

>> i yield back -- well, i'll be glad to yield to somebody. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. dr. murphy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find it fascinating around here that oftentimes campaigns and the politics are criticizing people who are somehow sending jobs to china and opec. and then we're buying goods from them. now, if you wait long enough, everything seems to reverse itself. and now we seem to be criticizing those who make things in the u.s. and want to sell to other countries. let me name some of the things that we make in the u.s. which we export. civilian aircraft. semiconductors. passenger cars. medical, dental and fusme preparations. vehicle parts, industrial machinery, yes, fuel oil, organic chemicals, telecommunications equipment, the list goes on and on. and my friend from texas was just pointing out, there is a great concern for our trade deficit. trade deficit means we sell you something, you sell us

something. whoever sells the least loses on the deficit. let's look at some numbers here with china. in 2011, last year, we had a $272 billion trade deficit. and 2010, a $27 billion trade deficit. in 2009, a $226 billion trade deficit. in 2008, $268 billion. how about at the european union? in 2011, with $89 billion, $61 billion trade deficit. how about opec? in 2011, 1d18 billion trade deficit. 2010, $95 billion. 2009, $62 billion. and 2008 when we bought a lot of oil from them, $178 billion trade deficit. this is rhetty 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 would 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 by preventing massachusetts from exporting to china and the e.u. to see how that state fares when it has to import more than export. what we do here in this country is we make things. and we sell products to other countries, and that helps our jobs. when we refine oil, in coastal areas, and we 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 an addition to buying products from other countries of also sending them our blood and treasury to your protect their oil fields. i'm particularly frustrated because when i go down to bethesda hospital, and i'm over there in the navy treated in

our wounded warriors and see these kids with their arms, 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. and having our own energy independence. and we're setting up this fallacious argument about we shouldn't be allowed to export? we shouldn't be allowed to lower the overall cost of oil? we should continue to have opec with a 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 in this committee. and understand to all these costs and all these numbers pale in comparison to what we see. from sending thousands of soldiers over there to protect mideast oil. we have an opportunity here to have tens of thousands of jobs with our oil. with north american oil.

with north american workers. with north american and welders and steam fitters. what about them? i've had it up to here with protecting opec. i've 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 mine for things here and send them to other countries? it's about time. it's 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, creativity and inventiveness of scommerns if we draw this line around boreders and not sell anything to the world anymore we will suffocate ourselves from 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 lives of americans who have to go overseas and protect oil fields from opec, for no other reason than that, vote no on this amendment. and keep america strong. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i'm recognizing in orders of seniority unless your accent is similar to mine. and then i'm -- [laughter] so i'm -- the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, is recognized. >> are you trying to say my accent is similar to yours? >> i'm saying it's seniority and it's your turn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad my colleagues, my good friend, mr. scalise, and mr. murphy, got all that off their chest. i didn't know how obamacare got into the discussion. but mr. scalise, i think you feel a lot better now that you got all that out there. look, i don't support the markey amendment. but i understand why he's offering it. and one of the most unfortunate parts of this entire debate, the whole time we've been having it, is the hyperbole

that we've been hearing from some that this keystone pipeline is going to give us domestic security that all of a sudden we're going to have a source of oil and we will no longer need to buy from outside sources because we've got all this oil coming from canada that we're going to be able to use. we know that's not true. i support exporting. and i understand the whole process. we've been telling the american people that somehow this keystone pipeline is going to lower the gasoline prices. everybody knows that's fantasy. oil is priced on a world market. we told people that this is going to be hundreds of thousands of jobs for americans. well, we know that's not true. there's going to be jobs for americans. and there's going to be construction jobs. but the numbers, this huge number, and then lastly. we tell them that 75% of the steel in this project is coming from north america. well, i got news for you. that's far from true, too. so i think what mr. markey's done here, the end result, i

think is a bad thing, and why i won't support his amendment is to try to point out that what we need in 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 t's and dot those i's and i'm not for any 30-day fast track or the attempt at what my friend, mr. terry, is trying to do. but i think ultimately this pipeline will be approved. once it goes through. all the processes that it needs to go through to ensure that people's safety and environmental concerns are met. and i support that. and i think there's going to be some good construction jobs by people and organized labor. i think that's a good thing. for those reasons alone, i think it makes sense. but let's not kid ourselves. that oil is going down to the gulf. it's going to get refined in these tax-free zones and a lot of it is going to leave the country and go other places. that's the way it works. there's nothing wrong with that

and nothing illegal with that but that's just reality. so let's not make americans think that somehow we're now energy independent because of the keystone pipeline. when gasoline prices go up, let's not delude americans that if the keystone pipeline would have been fast tracked, their gasoline prices wouldn't go up. the two have nothing to do with one another. and let's be sure also that if we're saying that something has 75% of north american steel in that, that we're able to certify that that is actually 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. and i will oppose the markey amendment because i believe that it's more an illustration of let's have a little bit of truth in this debate than what would actually do. i think would be detrimental. but i just think we ought to give the american people true expectations here and not sell this keystone pipeline to some cure-all, end-all to all the problems we have in the united states. because that's just not true. and i would yield the remaining amount of might have time to any one of my drig colleagues

that might want to -- democratic colleagues that might want to take advantage of 1:30. does anybody want 1:30? mr. markey. >> that's ok. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back his time. >> it's acceptable under the rules to yield back. i mean, that's -- >> 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 from pittsburgh just mentioned. one is that tom brady can't throw and catch the bleeping ball. and that in 2011, we imported 11.8 million barrels per day of oil or refined gasoline. and it is also true that this pipeline, when built, when started, would supplant seven

or produce 700 million barrels per day up to over a million. barrels per day. >> 700,000 barrels per day. >> what did i say, 700 million? >> 700 million. >> that would be a good start. 700,000. so 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. so 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 he's going to 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 part of that, like diesel, excess diesel, is exported to europe. we've already heard from several of my colleagues that there's other byproducts 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 is to just not use heavy crude or any fossil fuel. and that's what this amendment is really about. so i would encourage us to put this in perspective as mr. doyle has said. it will create jobs. it will provide energy, a level of energy security for us. so let's go for that. >> i yield to mr. whitfield. >> thank you, very much, for yielding. i want to make a couple of comments. we also remember our experience on the alaskan north slope. and alaskan north slope oil originally had an export ban. and the ban was controversial.

and was ultimately lifted by president clinton in 1996. and a g.a.o., after the export ban was lifted, found that domestic production actually increased because that export 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 defigalo, deputy assistant of policy for analysis at the u.s. department of energy in responding to the study by philip verlager. and philip verlager study is where everybody talks about all this oil is going to be exported. in his memo, mr. defigalo basically shoots holes in in mr. ferla gfment ler's article

and said from their analysis, their 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 to the u.s. because of our huge trade deficit. and let's let the free market work. so i just want to point out those two things. and i appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. >> the gentleman yield back? >> yield back. >> the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky s. recognized for five minutes. >> i want to agree to mr. dwhoil said let's be honest about this -- mr. doyle said let's be honest about this. called the north american energy access act and at this point in the debate t. seems to me it ought 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 our young men and women dying over the protection of oil. well, last friday, the subcommittee on energy and power heard testimony on this bill from retired brigadier general anderson, a senior logistics officer under general petraeus in iraq, general anderson was responsible for getting the fuel supplies to the troops. and he stated, and i quote, quote, i strongly oppose the keystone x.l. pipeline because it will degrade our national security. the critical element is simply this. the pipeline keeps our great nation addicted to oil, a dependence that makes us both strat teenagically and operationally -- strategically and operationally vulnerable.

we have to be honest about our national security and whether we're really about energy access or about exporting. and i would like to yield the balance of my time to mr. markey. >> i thank the gentlelady. i hear the great concern about restricks on any exports of oil from the united states and 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 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 of you voting on that next week. and see how many of you vote against -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> let me just finish. so you've agreed to an export ban of that oil.

but you're opposing this one. and i'm looking forward to each of you next week trying to resolve these basically conflicting export free market principles on the same day. now, let me just move forward then to the next issue which is what the bill does. it says no refined products can be exported. so just so you know what refined products are. refined products are diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, residual fuel oil, butane, kerosene, that's the definition of refind 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. which is produced here in the united states. that can be exported.

those are not refined products. why do i make the amendment? i make the amendment because i want a low prigse. -- 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? because i don't want 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. you 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 right now is four times lower than asia. that helps all of american industry, all of american consumers with much lower

prices in the manufacture of steel, of pantyhose and 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's -- that hurts us. we are the sawed yabe of natural gas -- the saudi arabia of natural gas. what is this part of? the same story. how do we export the oil that comes from canada to the united states into port arthur, texas and send it around 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? >> the gentleman's time has expired. i'm going to recognize myself. but before i do that, i just 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 include provisions that ensure that any crude oil & bitumen transported by the keystone x.l. pipeline and all refined products will be entered into domestic commerce for final disposition. so as i read your amendment, it pertains not only to refined products but also to crude oil and bituminin. you might want to check that. and i'm going to recognize myself for five minutes. in opposition to the markey amendment. first of all, 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 crude -- if you aren't 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 descended 1,500 miles through the united states to the gulf coast. as a matter of fact, the united states is importing about nine million barrels of oil per day, crude oil. and we export very little crude oil. less than 50,000 barrels a day. at the most recent numbers that i've seen. so you don't have to have a prohibition against exporting crude oil when you have a country that's importing nine million barrels a day, number one. and number two, the country, the host country, if they want to export it, not use it in the -- in their own country, i.e. canada, they -- they will export it as crude somewhere else and the highest market. they send it to the united

states because they're getting the highest market price right now. 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 in petrochemical industry that's competitive enough in world markets that we can actually export some of our refined products. they are value added products. they are creating, 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 eiea 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've 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 distillate fuels. and we actually can be competitive in the european market. that's a good thing, not a bad thing. the gentlelady from the virgin island was talking to me recently that a big refinery in her region is shutting down. it's a 500,000 barrel per day refinery. it's an older refinery and not as competitive and demand for some of these refined products has declined in the united states, which is their primary market, apparently they're not competitive enough to ship into the european market. 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. >> the entire republican majority on this committee would make the amendment against the young amendment. >> i can't -- >> that's your position. you don't want any restrictions . >> if you go to the rules committee and ask for an amendment to strike that portion of the young amendment or the young bill, i'll support you on that. because i happen to agree with you. that you shouldn't have restrictions on any product. >> no, i agree -- that part -- that part of the young bill i agree with. what i don't agree with the drilling in the arctic but i do agree if we're drilling in the arctic refuge it should stay here. and let a pipeline come through the united states we should keep it here. >> reclaiming my time, it's been pointed out, we have a competitive refinery industry in the united states because we've invested billions of dollars. and there is slightly excess capacity. u.s. refineries are operating right now between 85% and 90%

of their boiler plate capacity. so 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, that we should do so.

why do you think they are not misrepresenting other things? you do not want to get the government involved in permitting this pipeline to make sure they have the facts, to know the truth before they sign off on it. instead, the republican said there not bother us with the information. we want this approved. then they want to blame the president when it is not a prude. in think this is strictly

political theater and unfortunate when americans want jobs and republicans have not cooperated in getting as jobs. this is the only proposal that republicans have. they have two others. but the people of the upper income keep their money. i talked to a fellow who told me if i got another tax cut, i am still not going to hire more people unless there is demand. they want to throw out regulations to protect the republic help, at safety, and the environment. that is the wish list of all these industries that do not want to spend any money. even the industry's required to meet these obligations are not asking the republicans for what the publicans are advancing. they want to make people think the reasons we do not have jobs is because there are regulations, the rich are not

rich enough, and this pipeline will provide jobs. i think the american people can see through that. that is 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 these pipeline jobs that fit the republican agenda. >> the president's home commission said build the pipeline for jobs. the one which it recently spoke of -- >> the president convenes people to give them ideas on jobs. heat can convene a commission on how to reduce the deficit. that does not mean he has to believe on any -- eight does -- that does not mean he has to

believe everything. he at to spend at -- spend enormous energy to refine that oil just so it can go to the pipeline -- this is a unique pipeline. we want to note are we endangering communities for a pipeline taking this particular kind of oil. >> will the jim demint yield? >> not yet. i think the amendment should be adopted. if you are getting a misrepresentation on america's still being used or not, you may be getting other misrepresentations as well. >> time has expired. i suggest that time for debate on this amendment has expired. we will reconvene at 2:45 with a rollcall vote.

we have three minutes. >> should your present not have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and young people in this country? ask yourself that question, please. should his life not be a role model for your future note -- future children? should anyone you elect to this office always keep their promises?

>> we look back at 14 men iran for the office of president and lot. go to our website, c- span.org/contenders, to see video of contenders who have made a lasting impact. >> do they not have the right to protest against the government they feel does not support their interest? who appointed us -- and has little or no apparent support from the other 85%. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> in his weekly address, president obama urges congress to pass the payroll tax cut extension which he says will prevent a tax increase. then, virginia governor bob mcdonald is the -- bob mcdonald

is the republican address. -- bob mcdonnell gives the republican address. > >> hello, everybody. in recent weeks, we've seen signs that our economy is growing stronger and creating jobs at a faster clip. while numbers and figures will go up and down in the coming months, what cannot waver is our resolve to do everything in our power to keep stoking the fires of the recovery. and the last thing we should do is let washington stand in the way. you see, at the end of the month, taxes are set to go up on 160 million working americans. if you're one of them, then you know better than anyone that the last thing you need right now is a tax hike. but if congress refuses to act, middle class taxes will go up. it's that simple. now, if this sounds familiar, it's because we've been here before. back in december, congress

faced this exact same predicament. ultimately, thanks to your voices, they did the right thing -- but only after a great deal of bickering and political posturing that put the strength of our economy and the security of middle class families at risk. we can't go through that again. congress needs to stop this middle class tax hike from happening. period. no drama. no delay. and no ideological side issues that have nothing to do with this tax cut. now is not the time for self- inflicted wounds to our recovery. now is the time for common- sense action. and this tax cut is common- sense. if you're a family making about $50,000 a year, this tax cut amounts to about $1,000 a year. that's about $40 in every paycheck. i know there are some folks in this town who think $40 isn't a lot of money. but to a student or a senior who's trying to stretch the budget a little bit further? to a parent who is filling up the tank and looking at rising gas prices? to them, $40 can make all the difference in the world. and so can your voice. i hope you'll pick up the phone, send a tweet, write an email, and tell your representative that they should

get this done before it gets too late. tell them not to play politics again by linking this debate to unrelated issues. tell them not to manufacture another needless standoff or crisis. tell them not to stand in the way of the recovery. tell them to just do their job. that's what our middle class needs. that's what our country needs. in the wake of the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, we're getting things going again. and we're going to keep at it until everyone shares in america's comeback. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> i hope you are enjoying a great weekend with family and friends. this is the first weekend without any football since august. depending on who your team is, that could be a good or bad thing. this is the second straight year we find ourselves waiting for the annual release of the president's budget. federal law mandates he release his budget on the first monday

of every february. his administration has extended that another seven days. that delay pales in comparison to the nearly three-year hold up. harry reid's majority has not passed a budget in over 1000 days. they're refusing to even consider a budget on the floor. this is an astounding failure of leadership and management. of leadership and management. we will get a budget from the president and less than 48 hours. we do not know the specifics. we can reasonably predict a lot from his past policy decisions. we can expect his budget to make private sector job creation tougher because it will raise taxes and continue policies like obamacare and making it harder for small businesses to hire at a time when millions of americans remain out of work. we can expect the budget to ignore the growing crisis in this country. it will not protect the security of medicare and social security. it will continue down the road

to bankrupting these programs in the years ahead. we can expect the president's budget to again fail to address the $15 trillion and growing national debt. the obama approach is more debt, more taxes, and more blaming others. we can expect this will not be a proactive budget built to promote fiscal responsibility and future prosperity. it appears we will see a bloated budget that doubles down on the failed policies of the past. republicans know that we can do better. every day, hard-working taxpayers, families, and business owners balance their budgets on time without excuses. they live within their means by setting priorities and making tough choices. they want and deserve a smaller and smarter government that does the same. they are not seeing that in washington, d.c. they are increasingly witnessing the conservative approach in state capitals.

while washington borrows at a staggering $2.5 billion a day to keep the lights on, republican governors have slashed deficits. in virginia, we closed $6 billion in budget shortfalls without raising taxes and produced nearly $1 billion in surplus over the last two years by putting more money into transportation, colleges, and universities. in nebraska, the governor proposed tax cuts. in new jersey, the governor is pushing to cut the state income tax by 10%. republican governors in other states are working to reform their tax systems to make their states more competitive. republican governors are balancing budgets on time without tax increases and without deficit spending. their hard work to make government more efficient and effective is helping to create the environment where americans can use their talents to compete and innovate to pursue the american dream. in the most recent rankings of

business friendly states, 11 of the top 15 states have republican governors. those states are outpacing democratic counterparts when it comes to job creation takes seven of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates have republican governors. in 2011, states with republican governors added 912,000 new jobs. a true and lasting economic recovery will not come from government. it will come from the hard work, talents, and vision of the american people. republicans believe it is our duty to create an environment where private sector jobs can be created and sustained. we know when we limit government to free capital and reduce litigation, we spur private sector job creation. we believe the role of government in an economic recovery is simple. at every level, governments should pass budgets on time to preserve core functions and do not raise taxpayer dollars. at every level, governments should enact policies to ensure

private sector job creators and entrepreneurs can compete against the world, create jobs, and innovate. the american people can out- compete and out work anyone, anywhere. all they need is the opportunity. republican leaders in this capital are creating opportunities and getting results. we need that kind of leadership in the senate and white house. thank you for your time. have a great weekend. >> on news makers, the chairman of the energy and resources committee discusses energy legislation this session. he also talked about clean energy standards and negotiations to advance grain energy credits. newsmakers today at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> just so i remember, here is

that wonderful moment -- moment when senator lott prevailed his nostalgic for the state rights segregationist south. take a look. >> when strom thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. >> talking points memo.com josh marshall. >> the media at ecosystem is a different world today than it was. things like that happened all the time. i know there is certainly many big stories tpm has had over the past decade. we have an editorial staff of 20 people. we are breaking stories right and left. it has almost become commonplace. it is not nearly as surprising today as it was back then.

>> more about tpm and josh marshall tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern time and pacific. >> this panel discussion compared the tea party and occupy wall street movements. it is part of the conservative political action conference that was held here in washington, d.c. >> i will start bringing out our panelists. the first one is a very good friend of mine. i spent many long hours traveling the country talking to people with her. she is amy kramer. she was one of the original

founders of the atlanta tea party. [applause] amy left the party patriots and joined the tea party express. now she is one of the most recognizable faces of the tea party movement. she does an unbelievable job and i love her so much. >> thank you. >> our next panelist is kevin jackson. he is author of the book "the big black lie." he founded the "black fear blog." kevin has been featured on the glenn beck program, rush limbaugh, etc. he writes is almost daily blog and is a syndicated writer. he contributes to "american thinker."

he is hilarious. he will entertain you guys tonight. no pressure. our next guest is -- i need some water up here. our next guest is jennifer stefano. she is a director with americans for prosperity. [applause] jennifer's unexpected political career began in april of 2009 when she attempted to spend one day at the park with their husband and a newborn baby. they stumbled onto a tea party rally. soon after she started organizing and leading rallies from harrisburg to washington, d.c. she earned the nickname "the tea party rock star."

she is a wife, mother, and a terrible cinder. -- singer. our next panelist is the editor and chief of big journalism. [applause] she is a cnn contributor and host her own radio show. her original brand of young conservative the reverence has found a fast-growing audience. she was named one of the top 16 most powerful mothers by nielsen. she appears regularly on fox, cnn, abc, and hbo's "real time." she was the first and

only female guest host for michael savage who calls her his mental maps. -- mental match. she serves as a grass-roots organizer. she founded the st. louis tea party. she is credited with having the taking him out of new york 23. our last panelist is another young the conservatives superstar, ryan hecker. [applause] ryan is the coo of freedom works for america. he is a houston-based lawyer who launched the contract from america project. it is an open source platform

for the tea party movement. the agenda has the imprint of everyday citizens every step of the way. while the republicans' 1994 contract with america represented the nation's last intellectual conservative movement, the new contract was created from the bottom up. please give a big round of applause to the entire panel. [applause] now, we are going to let everybody give some brief remarks. the title of this panel is "taking wall street back." we are going to start the remarks with amy kramer. >> thank you so much. thank you for putting this cpac together.

this is inspiring. we needed this energy and inspiration going forward because we have a lot of work to do in the 2012 election cycle. it is up to us to take back this country from the administration on the left. i am honored to be here with all of you great people. obviously, the tea party has had significant impact on the political landscape across the country. in the past six-eight months, we have heard about occupy wall street. we have seen it happen all across the country starting in new york city. the media wants to write to the narrative that occupy wall street is alive and well. the post pictures and videos and everything of their bright signs and a boisterous people. and then they are writing stories that the tea party movement is dead.

i have news for them. the tea party movement is not dead. we are alive and well. we have grown and matured into tea party 2.0. judge us by election day when we are out voting and they are still out with their signs. the difference is that we have great ideas. we have truly changed the political landscape. it not only on a federal level, but on a state and local level. that is what is happening across this country. we are truly having an impact. we are not backing down. we are not giving up.

if anything, this tea party movement will have an impact on the united states senate when we take the gavel out of harry 's hands. we are going to reclaim the house. the reason the tea party movement has been so successful is because we have great ideas. we understand that we have to take action to implement those ideas. if you truly want to implement change, you change the players. the most valuable tool we have is our vote. we show it in 2010 and we will show it in 2012. occupied wall street resorted to all kinds of tactics. i do not even want to get into it. it is not worthy of our time. we are here to save america,

and to protect the great constitution that america was founded on. that is what we are here for. that is what we are going to do. this movement is something that has been created by the left. it is an astroturf movement. obviously they were out in front of the hotel yesterday. they were out there, and they were paid probably $60 a day to come here. the unions are infiltrating them because they see the value of it. that is okay. we are going to take this country back. we are going to continue to move forward. that is why i am blessed to be here and be part of cpac and be a part of the great palace here.

we are all about grass roots. we believe in this country. >> thank you, amy. >> i will tell you this. occupy has me mad. -- me madder than janet napolitano's blind date. it is a movement that has 1 foot on a grave and another on a banana peel. more people watched my fifth grade's youtube videos than this crap. i love to confront lunacy on all forms. this is a perfect example. i am happy to talk them down. somebody asked me why we do not have somebody from occupy on our panel. i said, why should we? by the way, how many people are in occupied?

i want to the media to cover that. thank you for your time. i am happy to be here. >> that is why i love you. you always pull your punches. >> i get asked all the time. i am asked what is the difference between the tea party and occupy. i am one of these political nerds so i can get into the policy issues. if you're standing in a room in your not sure how to separate them, do one thing. raise an american flag. the tea party years will stand and put their hands over their hearts and pledge to it. the occupied people will try to defecate on that. you tell me, that is the difference. [applause] the tea party movement came about. i was a stay at home mother and

a wife, and i still am and a practitioner of the domestic arts. which i love. [applause] terrible singer, but wonderful cook. here is the deal. we are standing arms and arms so our children do not have to defend the liberty that is being taken to us which is in doubt and not by the government but by the creator. we need to proclaim that every day of our lives. [cheers and applause] one more thing i will say. when i started in this movement that was an unpaid housewife wearing a flak. today i am a paid patriot. i always get asked the same question. they always bring up this big evil americans for prosperity.

here is what i say to them. if americans for prosperity or anybody would like to cut me a check to go out and defend the cause of liberty. i will do two things. i will cash it and kiss them. and in that order. this girl is a capitalist. [applause] the tea party movement came about because we do not need a leader to save us and restore us to greatness. take it to the bank. we were always great, and we will show that in 2012 and beyond. [cheers and applause] >> you amaze me. >> i read that the union bosses had paid these occupy people.

i went out there to see how many there were. they had a big giant golden toilet out there. so did saddam hussein. they paid them $60 a day. i think we could probably take up a collection and paid them $70 a day to protest outside of the white house. [applause] there is three differences that i see between the occupied movement and the tea party movement. i want to address the issue of astroturf thing. it always amazes me how progressives believe conservatives cannot go out in public and cannot peacefully assemble and raise their american flags and do things to promote conservatism without being paid. i think what we have seen from the occupy movement is that is because that is how they live. they get paid to go out and get paid for their ideologies. we believe in the thingst