U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–178PDF 2015

THE CRUDE OIL EXPORT BAN:

HELPFUL OR HURTFUL?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 14, 2015

Serial No. 114–22

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

TED POE, Texas, Chairman 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael McCaul, United States House of Representatives ........ 3

The Honorable Joe Barton, United States House of Representatives ................. 8

Mr. Jason Grumet, founder and president, Bipartisan Policy Center ................ 12

Ms. Elizabeth Rosenberg, director, Energy, Economics, and Security Program, 

Center for a New American Security ................................................................. 22

Mr. Jason Bordoff, founding director, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University ....................................................................................................... 32

Mr. Stephen Kretzmann, founder and executive director, Oil Change International ................................................................................................................. 42

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Michael McCaul: Prepared statement .......................................... 5

The Honorable Joe Barton: Prepared statement ................................................... 10

Mr. Jason Grumet: Prepared statement ................................................................ 15

Ms. Elizabeth Rosenberg: Prepared statement ..................................................... 24

Mr. Jason Bordoff: Prepared statement ................................................................. 34

Mr. Stephen Kretzmann: Prepared statement ...................................................... 44

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 64

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 65

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 66

The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Prepared statement .................................................... 69

(1)

THE CRUDE OIL EXPORT BAN:

HELPFUL OR HURTFUL? 

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. POE. The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitation in the rules. 

The United States is now the largest crude oil producer in the 

world. We have more oil than we can refine or store. The majority 

of U.S. refineries were built to handle heavy, sour crude, but oil 

production is light, sweet crude. The United States’ refineries cannot keep up with the new production. 

Normally producers would simply pump oil into storage containers, but experts say those storage tanks could fill up before the 

end of this very month. Instead of exporting excess oil like producers get to do in other nations, the ban is already forcing U.S. 

oil producers to leave oil in the ground and lay off workers. About 

50 percent of the working rigs in my home state of Texas have had 

to shut down in just the last 6 months. Seventy thousand oil workers have been laid off since Thanksgiving. 

The solution to this problem is clear: Export crude oil; have the 

ban lifted so that it can be exported. Critics of lifting the ban are 

afraid the United States’ oil exports will lead to higher domestic 

gas prices. However, many studies have debunked this myth. Gas 

prices are more closely linked to the international market, or Brent 

Price, than the domestic price of crude because refined products 

like gasoline are traded freely on the international market. So the 

more crude oil we have, the more we can put on the international 

market, and the lower the international price of crude. The lower 

the international price of crude the lower the price of gas for America. 

A Rice University study released in March 2015 reviewed previous studies that examined the impact of removing the ban on gas 

prices. They found that all studies underscore that lifting of the export ban will not translate into higher gasoline prices. In fact, studVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:56 May 21, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\041415\94178 SHIRL
2

ies generally project gasoline prices in the U.S. will fall once the 

ban is lifted. 

U.S. crude entering the global market will increase the international oil supply and decrease the price of gas. The only thing 

the studies do not agree on is just how much the gas prices will 

drop. Lifting the ban will also lead to more jobs and higher GDP. 

An IHS study predicts crude oil exports would support nearly 

300,000 jobs by 2018. Removing the export ban would add 26 billion to the GDP per year and improve labor income about $158 per 

year on average. 

As it improves the U.S. economy, removing the ban will also improve our national security. The original purpose of the ban put 

back in 1973 was to insulate the United States from the volatility 

of the international oil market. Ironically, today the ban exposes 

the United States’ market to volatility. If ISIS continues to wreak 

havoc and disrupt oil prices in places like Libya and Iraq, having 

more U.S. crude oil on the market would help prevent a spike in 

the price of crude oil and gas prices. Lifting the ban would free us 

up to help our allies. 

Europe gets 40 percent of its oil from Russia. Exporting crude oil 

would give the Europeans an alternative to having to depend on 

Russia. It would also increase our influence in Asia. Japan and 

South Korea partly rely on crude oil from Iran to satisfy the growing energy consumption. U.S. exports can help diminish that reliance. 

It is ironic to me, with the so-called deal with the Iranians, that 

it is now the U.S. Government’s long-term policy to allow Iran to 

export crude oil and inject billions of dollars in their own economy. 

At the same time, it is still the U.S. Government’s policy to prohibit American producers from doing the same. It seems to me 

what is good for the Iranian oil exports, should be the same deal 

that the United States’ oil producers get. 

U.S. exports offer a stable energy to our allies and decrease their 

reliance on dictators and state sponsors of terror. Lifting the ban 

shows the U.S. is serious about supporting free markets around the 

world. We criticize China for not exporting rare earth materials 

and yet we are not exporting crude oil. Removing the ban will give 

us more credibility when we criticize export bans in other nations. 

All in all, it is time we remove the crude oil export ban. Exporting crude oil will lower gas prices, increase American jobs and 

strengthen our national security. And that is just the way it is, to 

coin a phrase. 

I will now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Keating from Massachusetts for his opening statement. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you, Chairman Poe. And I would like 

to thank our witnesses, my colleagues, for being here. I feel a little 

bit relieved, because I am juggling between an important bill in 

Homeland Security today. And it is great to see the chairman here, 

and I think it also shows how important he believes this issue is 

for his district. 

And I look forward to an informative discussion today concerning 

what our witnesses see as the costs and benefits of lifting the current ban on exporting U.S. crude oil. It is vital that we consider 

the economic, environmental, and foreign policy implications of our 

3

dependence on fossil fuels and of the imports by the United States 

and our allies of oil and gas from volatile regions such as the Middle East and Eurasia. 

And while some oil companies advocate for diversification of energy sources on geopolitical grounds, I have seen instances of some 

oil companies actually obstructing renewable energy technologies, 

thereby undercutting their own argument, some of them, for diversification. I am concerned about the environmental consequences of 

ending the crude oil export ban and look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses in that regard. 

Lifting the export ban would cause the domestic price of crude 

oil to increase, many say, which would then lead to an increase in 

the production of U.S. crude oil. An increase in the production of 

domestic crude oil would have serious negative environmental impacts as well. 

For example, rising domestic crude oil production would heighten 

the risk of spills in transporting crude oil by pipeline, rail, truck, 

barge or tanker, and the negative health and environmental impacts of those spills are a concern as well. In addition to expanded 

domestic crude oil production, it would likely cause a significant increase in the release of carbon dioxide which contributes to climate 

change. 

The environmental cost of producing crude oil and continuing to 

rely on fossil fuels underscores that U.S. energy policy must seek 

to diversify our sources of energy and increase the production of 

wind, solar and other forms of cleaner, renewable energy. So I hope 

that is part of the discussion today as well and with that I yield 

back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. POE. I thank the ranking member. All members may file 

their statements. Without objection, all the witnesses’ prepared 

statements will be made a part of the record, and I will now introduce our first two witnesses on the first panel, both Members of 

Congress. 

Congressman Michael McCaul represents the 10th congressional 

district in the great state of Texas. Congressman McMaul, as already stated, is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland 

Security. 

We also have Congressman Joe Barton. He is from Texas as well 

and represents the 6th district. Congressman Barton is the chairman emeritus of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Both representatives have introduced legislation to lift the crude oil 

export ban that is pending before this subcommittee. 

I appreciate both of you being here. I will say for the record, Mr. 

McCaul does have a markup very soon. And without objection as 

soon as you testify you may leave, and Mr. Barton will stick around 

and answer all of the questions that would have been addressed to 

you after he testifies. 

Mr. McCaul? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL MCCAUL, UNITED 

STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure Mr. Barton will do a fine job answering questions directed at me. I must 

say we mentioned how intimidating it is to be sitting in the well 

4

here with the chair and ranking member so high up on the dias, 

and I can only imagine what the criminal defendants in your courtroom, how they must have felt before they went before you. Fortunately, I never had that opportunity. 

So I just need to say thank you for having this hearing and 

markup on this very important issue. It is long overdue to lift the 

40-year-old ban on crude oil exports. And I think it is fitting that 

we should have this discussion in the Foreign Affairs Committee 

because crude oil exports is a major foreign policy issue. 

Around the world our friends and allies are looking for a stable 

and reliable supply of American energy. And countries like Russia 

abuse their status as a dominant energy supplier to bully their 

neighbors in Europe and Central Asia, while supply disruptions 

from places like Iran and Libya leave the global oil markets vulnerable to price spikes. The geopolitical benefits of American energy 

exports as a diplomatic tool will both make us stronger economically and provide critical support to our partners around the world. 

But don’t take it from me, take it from the European Union’s 

trade negotiators who leaked a memo last year acknowledging that 

the crisis, and this is their quote: ‘‘The crisis in Ukraine confirms 

the delicate situation faced by the EU with regard to energy independence.’’

And then they urged the administration privately to lift, they 

said, ‘‘Lifting bilateral restrictions on gas and crude oil to increase 

security and instability through open markets.’’ To lift these restrictions to increase security and stability—this is the European 

Union. This is not you or I talking on the Republican side of the 

aisle. 

Or take it from Larry Summers, President Obama’s former director of the National Economic Council and President Clinton’s 

former Treasury secretary, hardly a Republican from Texas—I put 

that one in my script. He argues that if we wish to have more 

power and influence in the world in support of our security interest 

and in support of our values, and if we wish to have an influence, 

that we pay for with neither blood nor taxes, I do not see a more 

constructive approach than permitting the export of fossil fuels. 

Larry Summers. Of course the ranking member knows him well 

having represented the Boston area, and of course Harvard University being there. Some of my colleagues—I yield. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCaul follows:]

5


94178h-1.eps
6


94178h-2.eps
7

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, you have gone there too, as a 

Texan. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Some of my colleagues are skeptical. I don’t question their intent, but they are skeptical about lifting the ban. They 

contend that allowing crude oil exports could increase gas prices. 

They also argue that keeping our crude oil here at home makes us 

more energy secure. 

Allow me to address both of these points. First, the nonpartisan 

Government Accountability Office found that removing crude oil export restrictions will actually decrease gasoline prices by 1.5 to 13 

cents per gallon for American consumers. The Energy Information 

Administration explained this somewhat counterintuitive phenomenon, pointing out that the effect that a relaxation of current 

limitations on U.S. crude oil exports would have on U.S. gasoline 

prices would likely depend on its effect on international crude oil 

prices rather than its effect on domestic crude oil prices. 

We already allow for the free trade of gasoline so there is no reason why crude oil should be treated differently. Keeping the ban in 

place will in fact make us less energy secure, restrict economic 

growth, and without the option to export to foreign markets our 

producers will continue to be forced to sell their crude oil at an artificially discounted rate—which is already causing them, as the 

chairman mentioned, to cut back production by 50 percent. This is 

a real problem in states like mine where independent small producers are laying off workers. It also holds back growth in states 

that produce little to no energy at all because of the effect on other 

industries that support crude oil producers. 

Moreover, U.S. refineries are not fully optimized to process the 

explosive growth in domestic production of light, sweet crude in 

states like Texas and North Dakota, rather, they are configured to 

refine heavy crude from countries such as Canada and Mexico. Allowing for the free trade of crude oil will make the market more 

efficient by correcting this producer/refiner mismatch. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the crude oil export restrictions enacted in the wake of the 1970s era oil embargo are no longer justified given today’s market conditions. And as the chairman of 

Homeland Security, if this has a devastating or detrimental impact 

on ISIS and Iran, I think that would be a positive thing in our foreign policy and homeland security and I urge the subcommittee to 

repeal the export ban in its entirety as my bill does. But I think 

it is critical that Congress create a safety valve that ensures the 

President has the ability to restrict our exports in the case of unforeseen national emergencies. My bill, H.R. 156, the Crude Oil Export Act, which has been referred to this subcommittee, has such 

a provision. 

So I want to thank you again for drawing attention to the issue. 

It is an important issue. I think there will be a healthy debate on 

the committee that I serve on as well on this issue and I look forward to the day that they are both marked up and sent to the 

House floor for a vote. And with that I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the chairman, Chairman McCaul, and you can 

leave whenever you need to get to your committee. However, hopefully Mr. Keating the ranking member will stick around here for 

awhile. 

8

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. When we have votes I will need the ranking member on the markup. So with that I yield back. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE BARTON, UNITED 

STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

Ranking Member Keating, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Cook, Mr. Perry, Mr. 

Ribble, and Mr. Rohrabacher for attending this hearing. A special 

thanks to you, Chairman, for scheduling it. I am glad that your 

committee doesn’t have a limitation on the number of Texas witnesses. Most committees do, but I am glad that you are ecumenical. 

I am going to submit my written statement for the record and just 

speak extemporaneously. 

My bill is a very simple bill. It is a page long. It repeals the ban 

on crude oil exports that was first established back in 1975. It repeals it in its entirety. It is not phased in and phased out. It just 

repeals it very simple, and then it requires a study of what to do, 

if anything, with the strategic petroleum reserve which we established at about that same time as a buffer against any future Arab 

oil embargoes. 

Back in 1975 when the ban was put in place the world was a different place. U.S. production was declining and imports were increasing. We were in a bad economic situation. And it was felt at 

that time that oil was of such strategic importance that it should 

not be allowed to be exported. It is the only energy commodity that 

is so restricted. We export coal. We export natural gas. We even export wood chips and electricity. But we don’t export crude oil. 

Now oil is fungible, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee. There are differences in viscosity and sulfur content, 

but basically oil is oil. It can go anywhere. If we had a barrel of 

West Texas intermediate and we had a barrel of Saudi light, an expert with some testing could tell the difference but nobody on this 

committee could tell the difference. 

So the reason that I think we need to repeal the ban is pretty 

straightforward. U.S. oil production is increasing. It is over 10 million barrels a day and going up at least for the time being. We 

produce more oil than Saudi Arabia which is number two, or Russia that is number three. If we were to repeal the ban on crude oil 

exports, we would allow U.S. producers to sell their oil to any willing buyer whether it was domestic or foreign. 

What difference does that make you might ask? Well, it is pretty 

straightforward. Because we have a ban on producers selling on the 

world market today they can only sell to domestic refiners. Now 

that is automatically a bad thing. I am a friend of the U.S. refining 

industry. But because they can’t sell on the world market and because there is such a glut of oil being produced in the United 

States, U.S. refiners don’t have to pay the world market price. So 

they get a discount, what I call a ‘‘domestic discount.’’ And again, 

that in and of itself is not automatically a bad thing. 

But the refiners take this discount, they offer our producers less, 

they refine it and then they export on the world market. We are 

exporting about 3 million barrels a day of refined products. Those 

9

products are sold at world market prices, but the producer who is 

producing the crude oil is not getting the world price. 

Now that discount has varied over time. Right now it is about 

$10 a barrel. It has been as high as 30. If we repeal the ban, Mr. 

Chairman, on crude oil exports that discount disappears. Now that 

is not necessarily a bad thing for U.S. refiners, but it will be a good 

thing for U.S. consumers because putting more U.S. oil or any U.S. 

oil on the world market will tend to depress or at least stabilize 

world market prices, and that will result in lower pump prices over 

time for our consumers whether they be in Massachusetts, California, Texas or wherever. 

So Mr. Chairman, my time is about to expire but let me simply 

say, this is a win-win. It is a win for the consumer. It is a win for 

the producer. It is a win for the strategic interests of the United 

States, and it puts pressure on the Saudis and the Russians which 

are not, at least in the case of Russia is not always our friend. 

With that, my time is expired. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. But thank you for the hearing and thank all the members for their attendance. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]

10


94178g-1.eps
11


94178g-2.eps
12

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. Are there any 

questions from members of the panel? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rohrabacher. And let me 

just congratulate our colleagues, Mr. McCaul and Barton, moving 

forward like this. This is a really important issue and in the long 

run it is going to have a very positive impact on our people. And 

it is time that government got off our hind end and just got out 

there and got some things done and this is one of the things we 

could do to make things better. So thank you very much for your 

leadership. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

Anyone else? 

I want to thank you, Mr. Barton, for being here. You are excused. 

You do not have to stay. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, sir. And let me simply say I am willing 

to discuss this one-on-one with any of the members of your subcommittee or the full committee. I do sincerely appreciate you having a hearing and I look forward to discussing this in the future. 

Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Barton. 

We will get ready for our next panel, if they will come up. I want 

to thank our panelists for being here. I will introduce each one of 

you, and then we will go in the same order for your testimony; and 

limit your testimony to 5 minutes please. 

Mr. Jason Grumet is the founder and president of the Bipartisan 

Policy Center. Previously Mr. Grumet founded and directed the National Commission on Energy Policy. 

Ms. Elizabeth Rosenberg is director of the Energy, Economics 

and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. 

Prior to this position, Ms. Rosenberg served as a senior advisor at 

the U.S. Department of the Treasury to the assistant secretary for 

Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, and then to the undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. 

Mr. Jason Bordoff is professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs and founding director of the Center on 

Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Before joining the 

Columbia faculty, Mr. Bordoff served as special assistant to the 

President and senior director for energy and climate change on the 

staff of the National Security Council. 

Dr. Stephen Kretzmann is the founder and executive director of 

Oil Change International. Mr. Kretzmann has worked on environmental and social issues around the global fossil fuel industry for 

the last 25 years. 

Mr. Grumet, we will start with you, and you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JASON GRUMET, FOUNDER AND 

PRESIDENT, BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER 

Mr. GRUMET. Thank you very much, Chairman Poe, Ranking 

Member Keating, Mr. Sherman. I will thank you again, Chairman 

Poe, Ranking Member Keating, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Ribble, Mr. 

Rohrabacher, the committee, for the privilege to be with you this 

morning. As I hope my testimony reveals, the Bipartisan Policy 

Center supports efforts to lift restrictions on crude oil exports. 

13

In the broadest sense, this ban is a 40-year-old anachronism. It 

was passed at a moment of significant national weakness. The 

irony is that this policy is now inhibiting one of our nation’s greatest strengths. Our energy abundance has profound potential to continue to accelerate our economic recovery, to strengthen our interests internationally, and we do believe it is time for it to be reconsidered and lifted. Left unaddressed, the policy will undermine domestic production and it will weaken our recovery. 

But more relevant, I think, to this committee, keeping U.S. resources and market power on the sidelines empowers our adversaries to use their energy as a weapon. It diminishes our ability to 

produce a myriad, and pursue a myriad, of policy imperatives, and 

it undermines our ability and credibility to advocate for free trade 

in open markets. 

What I would like to do is try to summarize and frame a few 

ideas around the economy and then around foreign policy, and if 

the clock allows a few words about maybe a path forward. And let 

me just begin in the crucible of at least the political conversation 

which of course is gas prices. 

Inevitably, the political debate will ultimately come down to assertions and perceptions about the impact of any policy change on 

the price at the pump. But fundamentally, consumers are really 

somewhat on the sidelines in this debate. This debate is fundamentally a commercial dispute between producers who want access to 

the prices in a global market and refiners who are enjoying, as the 

Congressman said, the discount of a lower cost crude supply. 

For many, I think, the expectations about consumer impact rest 

on the misconception that refiners through some imagination of altruism are going to pass on these savings to consumers and drivers. But this simply is not how competitive markets work. Refiners 

appropriately seek the highest price for their product capturing any 

windfall for their shareholders. Because gasoline and refined products are of course sold globally, it is the global price that affects 

us here in the U.S. and not the price of domestic crude. 

And there have been a number of studies which I hope we will 

talk about a little bit that basically endorse this proposition. The 

group, IHS, did a detailed assessment which asserted that prices 

in the U.S. would fall by 8 to 12 cents a gallon. Mr. Bordoff has 

done fine work that I believe suggests that the price could go down 

by up to 8 cents a gallon. Rice University, the Energy Information 

Administration, and the Resources for the Future, have all essentially confirmed the same idea: That lifting the mandate will increase global production, and in doing so, add supply to the market 

which will create reductions in price and more resiliency. 

And while none of us can pretend to know exactly what the extent of those benefits are—and I would suggest, Mr. Poe, that if we 

did I would ask you to pause the hearing so we could all run and 

call our brokers—it is pretty clear that adding supply to the global 

market is going to have a beneficial impact on prices. 

One last point about economics and that is the simple but obvious point about jobs. The abundance in energy has been a dramatic, I think, improvement to recent economic struggles and by 

increasing production we will in fact increase the availability of 

good high paying jobs in this country. It is true that the market 

14

for jobs around energy production has diminished as prices have 

gone down, but consumers have had that benefit of lower prices. 

The double whammy of the ban is that it depresses economic productivity at home without in fact providing those consumer benefits, and that I think is the reason economically why we believe it 

is a barrier to progress. 

Let me turn now to trade and then a moment on how we project 

power. I think the U.S. has righteously decried resource nationalism for decades and protectionism that has inhibited and hindered global energy markets. And until recently our four decade old 

ban was essentially, I would like to think, was kind of a quaint hypocrisy. It was an aberration in policy, but it really had no impact 

on markets because we had no excess capacity in fact to share with 

the world. This has now of course changed, and for the Congress 

to perpetuate the ban at this moment I think would in fact undermine our credibility in promoting open markets. 

Finally, talking about the impact on foreign policy, the ban simply empowers our adversaries. Absent spare capacity in the global 

market, any unanticipated loss of supply can have a devastating effect on our economy and the economy of our allies, and so in a nomargin environment people who wish us harm are essentially empowered. Our ability to pursue our national interests are also inhibited. If our economy and the global economy is essentially looking over its shoulder at every moment, our ability to have significant coalitions like that we brought together around Iran, I think, 

would be disabled. Our ability to go to our allies and say, ‘‘Listen, 

we need you to stick with us; sanctions only work if, in fact, they 

are broadly applied and we can now give you confidence that this 

is not going to cause you economic harm at home,’’ we were able 

to say that because of domestic production. Lifting the ban would 

only strengthen our hand. 

And so while it is impossible to precisely delineate the prospective foreign policy of our energy abundance, I don’t think it is exaggerated to say that our ability to fortify the global energy market 

will neutralize a myriad of threats and it will increase our options 

and strengthen our hands across the globe. And I thank you for the 

opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumet follows:]

15


94178a-1.eps
16


94178a-2.eps
17


94178a-3.eps
18


94178a-4.eps
19


94178a-5.eps
20


94178a-6.eps
21


94178a-7.eps
22

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Ms. Rosenberg? 

STATEMENT OF MS. ELIZABETH ROSENBERG, DIRECTOR, ENERGY, ECONOMICS, AND SECURITY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR 

A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you, Chairman Poe, Ranking Member 

Keating, members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify 

today on the U.S. crude oil export ban. Recent dramatic increases 

in U.S. energy production have reshaped our oil industry, our industrial output and many of our global trading relationships, as my 

co-panelists and the prior testifiers already indicated. The oil boom 

has improved our GDP and balance of trade and meaningfully advanced our energy and national security. These benefits however 

will be clipped if policymakers do not change 1970s era crude export policies that prevent U.S. oil from moving to markets overseas. 

In today’s abundant oil market, supply conditions with a problematic mismatch between increasing new volumes of domestic 

light oil and a refining industry geared toward heavier oil, having 

export restrictions does not make sense. They prevent U.S. producers from accessing international buyers able to process more 

light crude and who will pay international benchmark prices. They 

depress domestic prices and distort the market. And in turn, this 

constrains the growth potential for domestic producers and our 

economy more broadly. Only a subset of American refiners benefit 

from the depressed domestic oil prices and they do not pass on cost 

savings to consumers as gasoline prices are largely set by global 

benchmarks. 

Removing the oil export ban while promoting responsible production and energy efficiency will help to alleviate energy market distortions, and improve productivity, natural resource stewardship 

and economic performance. It will stimulate energy production 

growth which will decrease domestic gasoline prices and expand 

GDP. 

Strengthening our economy, the engine of our national security, 

strengthens the United States to lead on international economic, 

strategic and defense matters. Lifting the ban will also support our 

foreign partners and our interests abroad. More U.S. crude shipped 

overseas will diversify the global supply pool and allow our trading 

counterparts abroad to achieve a better mix of imported energy 

commodities. This will enhance market efficiencies and lower costs 

for consumers. 

These factors make the United States a more important trading 

partner for economies abroad and therefore expand U.S. leverage 

in trade negotiations and in the conduct of our foreign affairs. At 

a critical moment in the evolution of trade negotiations with Atlantic and Pacific partners, the United States should affirm a commitment to free trade and energy and expectation that trading partners will adopt similar commitments. Additionally, open energy 

trade is in line with U.S.-WTO commitments and will be indispensable in winning potential future natural resource trading disputes. 

Another important benefit of lifting the oil export ban is the contribution it will make to energy security. When more of the oil supply pool comes from stable producers such as producers in the 

23

United States, the overall market is more stable. U.S. crude will 

be shipped by fewer maritime hot spots and choke points such as 

the Straits of Hormuz and the South and East China Seas. 

Particularly in times of market crisis, the unrestricted ability of 

U.S. producers to export will make them more responsive to market signals and better able to adapt quickly. This contributes to 

market conditions that can quickly resolve and possibly even deter 

actions by foreign producers to use oil as a strategic weapon. Lifting the export ban will also give the United States more flexibility 

to sustain and expand energy sanctions in the future. Notwithstanding the potential for a successful nuclear deal with Iran, this 

is important as a contingency measure, at a minimum. 

Allies of the United States, many of whom reluctantly participated in energy sanctions in the past, may prove unwilling to participate in future sanctions unless the United States makes a 

proactive effort to stimulate alternative oil supplies and keep the 

market balanced. If the United States cannot convince allies to join 

on energy sanctions against adversaries in the future, the threat of 

new sanctions will not be credible and their effect will not be forceful. 

Washington has a unique window of opportunity to harvest dividends from abundant domestic energy. Policymakers should lift the 

oil export ban and promote responsible energy production to promote economic growth and allow the United States to reap the geopolitical advantages of having a larger and more flexible role in the 

global oil market. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenberg follows:]

24


94178b-1.eps
25


94178b-2.eps
26


94178b-3.eps
27


94178b-4.eps
28


94178b-5.eps
29


94178b-6.eps
30


94178b-7.eps
31


94178b-8.eps
32

Mr. POE. We now turn to Mr. Bordoff for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JASON BORDOFF, FOUNDING DIRECTOR, 

CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BORDOFF. Chairman Poe, Congressman Keating, members of 

the committee, thank you for the invitation to be with you today. 

I would like to summarize some of the findings from a recent report I co-authored at the Columbia University Center on Global 

Energy Policy, copies of which you should have in front of you. 

The oil export ban was originally adopted in the 1970s in response to concerns not only about oil scarcity after the Arab oil embargo, but also to prevent producers from getting around domestic 

price controls by exporting their oil into the global market where 

they could fetch a higher price. Price controls were eliminated 30 

years ago, but the export restrictions remain. 

U.S. oil production, as we all know, has boomed and imports 

have plummeted as a result. We are still going to be an importer 

of oil though for as far as the eye can see, most likely, so why are 

we even talking about exports? As we talked about this morning, 

the concern is the ability of domestic refiners to absorb the kind 

of oil that we are producing in the U.S. U.S. shale oil is very light 

oil, while many of our refineries have invested billions to handle 

heavy sour oil. You can run light oil through those refineries but 

it becomes increasingly economically challenging to do so. So as we 

have heard the price of U.S. oil may become discounted relative to 

the world price to incentivize domestic refiners to take it. It is about $6 today for a variety of reasons. A lower U.S. price 

would in turn mean less U.S. production, lower economic activity 

and higher net imports. To date, U.S. refiners have made low cost 

adjustments where they can. We have backed out mostly the import of light oil, and we have also exported what is allowed. Exports after all are not completely banned. They are restricted. Exports are allowed, for example, to Canada, and our exports there 

have surged, to almost 1⁄2 million barrels a day. And we have also 

had a surge in the export, as you heard, of refined petroleum, 

which is also allowed. 

As U.S. production grows, however, at some point you run out of 

these low cost options. The oil price crash means that the pace of 

U.S. supply growth is slowing down. The Energy Information Administration said yesterday production will probably decline next 

month, the first decline in U.S. shale oil output in 4 years. Storage 

is at an 85-year high. 

However, the oil export issue is still relevant. First, production 

may rebound faster than we expect. Second, the export ban may 

still depress U.S. prices periodically and temporarily, for example, 

during refinery maintenance or in response to other outages. Third, 

U.S. production may be more sensitive to any price discount at today’s lower levels. And then fourth, the policy process takes time. 

So I think it makes sense to prevent a market problem rather than 

wait for one to develop and then respond to it. 

Now what about gasoline prices? Wouldn’t lower U.S. oil prices 

mean lower U.S. pump prices? Well, we have talked about that already. The answer is no. This is because gasoline and diesel can 

be freely traded in the global market so the price is set by the 

33

world price. If U.S. crude is discounted that means refineries can 

buy crude more cheaply, but they still sell their product at the 

global price. And we saw this from 2011 to 2013 when the U.S. 

price was depressed not by the export restriction but by pipeline 

bottlenecks in Cushing. And as you heard, the Brookings Institution, Resources for the Future, Rice University, the Energy Information Administration and others, have found exports won’t raise 

pump prices, they might slightly lower them. 

We also want U.S. supply to respond to global circumstances. 

Consider how OPEC decided in November to let oil prices fall, forcing higher cost producers like the U.S. to cut production instead. 

We know shale oil can go off line very quickly compared to conventional oil, but it can also bounce back quickly too. And if the world 

price were to rise again to the $70s or $80s or $90s, U.S. oil supply 

could rebound quickly to slow that price rise to temper the impact 

on consumers at the pump. But that U.S. supply response may be 

impeded if we have to sell our crude at a discounted price. 

Briefly I would add, allowing exports I think is consistent with 

America’s longstanding commitment to free and open markets and 

it enhances our credibility in trade negotiations and avoids creating 

a potentially harmful precedent. Increased U.S. supply can also 

weaken the economic power, fiscal strength and geopolitical influence of other large oil producing companies and enhance U.S. diplomatic leverage in certain circumstances. 

And then, finally, I want to talk about the critical issue of climate change. We need to do much more to address climate change. 

To the extent oil exports boosts U.S. oil supply and lowers global 

prices, oil use and carbon emissions will rise, but climate change, 

I think, is best addressed with policies targeted at that problem. 

Restricting trade is a very costly way to achieve modest emission 

reductions relative to the benefits. Many government policies may 

raise emissions, like achieving faster GDP growth or a deal with 

Iran that allows Iran to sell more oil, but may still be desirable 

when the benefits are weighed against the costs. 

Members of the committee, thank you again for inviting me to 

appear here today and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bordoff follows:]

34


94178c-1.eps
35


94178c-2.eps
36


94178c-3.eps
37


94178c-4.eps
38


94178c-5.eps
39


94178c-6.eps
40


94178c-7.eps
41


94178c-8.eps
42

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Bordoff. We now turn to Mr. 

Kretzmann. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN KRETZMANN, FOUNDER AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. KRETZMANN. Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Keating and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. These comments are a summary of my written statement which you all should have for the record. 

Oil Change International believes the crude oil export ban should 

not be lifted and that maintaining the ban would be helpful from 

the perspectives of community safety and climate protection. Our 

analysis predicts that lifting the ban will lead to a hazardous increase in U.S. oil production. This production would in turn likely 

lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions and threats to public 

safety such as increased crude by rail traffic. 

The crude oil export ban was certainly not designed to play a role 

in climate change mitigation or to reduce the likelihood of a milelong freight train full of crude oil destroying a community in America’s heartland, however, it plays an important role in regulating 

an industry that currently has few limits placed upon it. More 

broadly, this issue points to the urgent need to harmonize energy 

policy with climate policy. We cannot drill our way out of the climate crisis, and arguments to that effect are nothing short of climate denial. 

Oil Change International conducted an analysis of the impact of 

lifting the crude oil export ban on U.S. oil production. We estimated a projected production increase of more than 476,000 barrels 

per day by 2020, which incidentally is very similar to the estimate 

that was arrived at by the American Petroleum Institute of 500,000 

barrels per day. 

The critical question to consider is what will oil producers do 

when confronted by this additional U.S. supply? The conventional 

wisdom had been that OPEC would counter new supply by reducing production to support higher oil prices. This conventional wisdom has been proven completely wrong over the last year. In the 

past 9 months it has become increasingly clear that Saudi Arabia 

is determined to maintain market share rather than cut production 

to support higher prices. This makes the conclusion that increased 

U.S. production will lead to increased global production and increased emissions clearer than ever. 

Lifting the crude oil export ban will likely increase crude by rail 

traffic putting 25 million Americans at greater risk of disaster. 

Since 2005, the amount of tank cars on U.S. railways has increased 

over 4,000 percent. At any given time there are about 135 100-car 

trains carrying a total of 9 million barrels of crude oil through 

American communities. If all of the projected increase in U.S. production were to go by rail, crude by rail traffic would see a 50-percent increase. If increased production were to reach the top end of 

the CGEP analysis, some 1.2 barrels of oil per day, this could more 

than double crude by rail traffic from today’s levels. 

Dozens of terminals on the Gulf Coast, at least four on the East 

Coast and at least six planned terminals on the West Coast, have 

facilities or will be designed with facilities for unloading crude oil 

43

from trains and loading it onto tankers for export. Lifting the crude 

oil export ban would put hundreds of communities and the lives of 

25 million Americans at increased risk of an oil train disaster such 

as the one in Lac-Megantic, Canada, last year where 47 people perished because an oil train derailed and exploded. 

It seems only a matter of luck that the incidents to date have not 

caused further loss of life. Crude oil trains pass through more than 

400 counties including major metropolitan areas such as Philadelphia, Seattle, Chicago, Newark, Richmond and dozens of other cities. This is an already untenable situation that we cannot afford 

to exacerbate by creating further traffic for exports. 

Lifting the crude oil export ban would also hinder progress toward the goal of climate protection. The stark reality laid out by 

the latest climate science is that more than three-quarters of existing proven fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground if the 

world is to maintain a two in three chance of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius. 

While it is not clear how much of U.S. oil reserves in particular 

need to be left in the ground, it is clear that lifting the ban would 

increase the incentives for production which is precisely the wrong 

signal to be sending. In fact, a gradual slowdown in U.S. and global 

oil production over time is exactly what we need in order to avoid 

catastrophic climate change. Any policy that could result in a net 

increase in global greenhouse gas emissions needs to be evaluated 

in terms of its climate impact. 

As President Obama noted in June 2013 in regards to the Keystone XL pipeline, our national interest will be served only if this 

project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. This climate test should be applied to all policy decisions as 

well as the permitting of infrastructure to extract, transport and 

process fossil fuels. The lifting of the crude oil export ban almost 

certainly fails this test. Our communities and climate in short are 

worth more than so-called free trade and the profits of the oil industry. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kretzmann follows:]

44


94178d-1.eps
45


94178d-2.eps
46


94178d-3.eps
47


94178d-4.eps
48


94178d-5.eps
49


94178d-6.eps
50

Mr. POE. Thank all our panelists. I will begin with myself asking 

questions. Try to limit questions by the members to 5 minutes, and 

so therefore you have 5 minutes to answer these questions. 

Start with you, Ms. Rosenberg. We have lifted, so to speak, the 

sanctions, the ban on Iran for exporting crude oil. That would be 

the long term policy if this deal goes through allowing Iran to export some of their crude oil. Does it make sense to you that we 

would allow Iran to put more oil on the world market but still prohibit America from putting more oil on the world market? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. In fact, 

I don’t think that makes sense at all. The U.S. has the greatest degree of leverage and influence in the market if it allows its producers to produce and sell their oil in an open, international market. Then the United States will be in a better position to, if necessary, if the additional sanctions or the reimposition of sanctions 

is appropriate in a policy circumstance, be able to quickly move, to 

credibly impose that policy and ask international allies to join with 

the United States in doing so which of course represents a sacrifice 

on their own part. They will be looking for alternative supplies to 

enter the market in order to go along with that policy. Lifting the 

crude exports ban will help make that a reality for them. 

Mr. POE. Let me talk about our allies. Countries need obviously 

crude oil imports. Europe is a primary example. And they have 

mentioned to me that it seems to be we want them to support sanctions against a country so they can’t export, but we don’t provide 

them an alternative for importing crude oil from the United States. 

That seems to be our policy. Would that help our ability to deal 

with our allies in an easier way if they had an alternative for, 

okay, you want us to have sanctions on Iran where we get oil, but 

you don’t provide us crude oil. Do you think that would be a better 

policy to say, okay, here comes the Cavalry? We are going to supply 

you some Texas crude oil. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. I think such a policy would put the United 

States in a much stronger position to encourage and influence our 

allies to join with the United States in imposition of sanctions. And 

experience from the Iran case would certainly bear that out where 

international allies said to the United States, this is very difficult 

for us economically. We join in this policy because we think it is 

the right foreign policy measure, but we have come to a point, or 

are near a point, where we can go no further unless there are alternative supplies. 

Mr. POE. Russians, well, the Europeans get about 40 percent of 

their energy oil from Russia. How would lifting the export ban on 

America thwart Russian monopoly, aggression maybe, policy, how 

would that impact it in your opinion? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Lifting the——

Mr. POE. U.S. ban. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Lifting restrictions on U.S. exports. 

Mr. POE. U.S. ban on American exports, not on Iranian exports. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Exactly. What it will do is stimulate greater 

supply from the United States, and greater diversity in the international supply pool, which will make Russia work much harder to 

supply Europe with oil. That will reduce its revenue if it plans to 

keep its market share, which is certainly in line with U.S. policy 

51

toward Russia which involves degrading their revenue generation 

ability in the energy sector in the medium and long term. 

Mr. POE. The United States is critical of China for not exporting 

its rare earth minerals. There may even be a complaint with the 

World, WTO, I am not sure. Are we somewhat hypocritical by criticizing China for not exporting but yet we don’t export our energy? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Not only hypocritical but also poorly placed to 

influence other countries to embrace free trade policies not just on 

energy but on other natural resource commodities. More broadly, at 

a time when the United States is engaged in very serious, significant discussion about free trade arrangements with Atlantic and 

Pacific partners, now is the opportunity for the United States to be 

sending the signals to some of those countries particularly in East 

Asia that will be making trade related decisions that will in fact 

impact our economy in the decades to come. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Mr. Kretzmann, you mentioned that the U.S. policy, our U.S. policy, of not exporting crude oil is because of the environment concerning climate change or to protect the environment. More exports 

would allow the environment not to be as good as it should be. I 

assume then that your organization then recommended to the administration that they not lift the ban on Iran because Iran now 

will be able to produce more energy and therefore they will pollute 

more. And so did you make this recommendation to the administration that they don’t lift the ban on Iran because they are going to 

produce more and it is going to hurt the climate? 

Mr. KRETZMANN. In general, we actually believe oil production 

across the globe should be phased down to levels that are consistent with the climate challenge. And so, no, we didn’t make a 

specific recommendation on Iran, but we weren’t called on to either. And we are quite consistent——

Mr. POE. Maybe that is why they didn’t. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. We are quite consistent—yes, I am sure. We are 

quite consistent on the fact that less oil needs to be used and we 

need to keep oil production and consumption to limits that are prescribed by global climate science. 

Mr. POE. The other comment that you made is that more rail 

cars are in America now because there is more oil. We could probably diminish the rail car capacity if we had more pipelines. That 

is just an observation. But my time is expired. I will yield to the 

ranking member. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to know that 

in the whole scope of things our sanctions with Iran deal more 

with, much more with their ability to have a nuclear weapon than 

international oil prices. 

We talked about the effect and I think it really can’t be questioned that lifting the ban would create more jobs. But in my state 

of Massachusetts, and I know how Texas has such an interest in 

this and I understand that too, in my own state one of the fastest 

growing industries has been surrounding the renewable energy. 

And I would just like to ask what effect would this have on the 

growth of renewable energy, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal 

in our country? I will ask Mr. Kretzmann. 

52

Mr. KRETZMANN. I think unfortunately ongoing policies that support the further growth of the oil industry in the United States 

tend to at least diminish investment in renewables, although on 

the other hand we are seeing more than we have ever seen before 

and that is good news. But I think the sooner that we can make 

it clear that our energy future is about renewables, and oil and coal 

and natural gas are about our energy past, the faster we can move 

markets to create more investment to create that transition that 

we all know is coming. 

Mr. GRUMET. Mr. Keating, Massachusetts did a profound job of 

advancing renewables but the vast majority of it is in the electric 

power section. The wind power is displacing coal and natural gas. 

We have almost no oil left in the electric sector. So I think the renewables question here really relates not so much to wind or solar 

or bio, but to biofuels and ethanol. And I think there is a conversation to be had about how domestic oil prices create or discourage 

market for alternative transportation fuels, but really not so much 

of a conversation about the interaction with wind power. 

Mr. KEATING. Because I have noticed in Europe how they are 

ahead of us in so many of these other areas as well and I assume 

some of their problems with access to oil and their concerns that 

were referenced by our witnesses today also spurred growth there 

in renewables. 

But I would just too like to touch base on the effect economically 

on our domestic refineries. What effect would this have on our refineries and could you put it in the context of what has been happening over the last few decades with our domestic refineries too? 

I will address that to anyone that wants to take that. 

Mr. GRUMET. I will take a shot, and Jason Bordoff knows more 

about it than I do so he will go next. I think the most important 

point I would like to make is that honestly none of us know. And 

it is critically important to recognize that the question here is not 

should we mandate oil exports, the question is should we step back 

and actually let that truth reveal itself? 

There are arguments made that in fact the most economic outcome would be for the refining industry to make significant investments here at home so it could process all of our domestic oil. The 

depressed price right now suggests that is not the case at the moment, but it is entirely possible that could be true. It is not my 

guess, but it could be true. The only way we figure that out is if 

you lift the restriction and let the truth become the truth. 

I think the mistake here, and we have often found there is a certain seduction to wanting to know the answer which encourages us 

all to want to try to pick market outcomes, the history of Congress 

picking market outcomes has not actually been a very proud one. 

And so I think most broadly, the best thing that we could do is not 

try to figure out whether it is the producers or the refiners who 

have the best of this projection and, in fact, let the market make 

that determination. 

Mr. KEATING. Yes, and if the refiners have that discount. And I 

would just like to ask you, what has been happening with domestic 

refineries? Have they contracted? Have they become more scarce? 

And if that is the case what effect could this have on that domestic 

job industry? 

53

Mr. BORDOFF. I can take a crack at answering it. I mean I think 

we know a little bit what the impact would be. As we heard, the 

U.S. refineries have been running at a very high utilization rate. 

The U.S. has gone from being the largest importer of refined petroleum in the world in 2006 to the largest exporter today. That is a 

dramatic turnaround. 

It is true that we saw refineries that depended on light crude, 

particularly in the Northeast, at risk of closing several years ago, 

and some were kept open because they were acquired by airlines 

or private equity firms or others and they have been enjoying a 

benefit of the discount that we are talking about, so this is sort of 

the direct corollary of the issue we are talking about. 

To the extent that this is as big of an issue for production as 

many producers say, it is because there is a discount that would 

otherwise develop in the market and that would benefit some refineries. If you don’t allow that discount to develop they won’t enjoy 

access to discounted crude and they won’t have that benefit. The 

question is whether, if you are concerned about the access to refined petroleum product in the Northeast, you think the right policy approach is to put in place an economy-wide restriction on energy trade in order to create a price discount that is, in effect, a 

subsidy to some refineries that are economically challenged, or 

whether it makes sense to allow energy trade and develop other 

policies to promote security of energy supply for refined petroleum 

in the Northeast. The administration recently put in place a gasoline product reserve in the Northeast. There are a host of other 

measures that one could put in place as well. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. POE. I thank the ranking member. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for being 

here. Mr. Bordoff, have you done any research in your study about 

the comparative regulatory regimes in environments around the 

globe as it relates to oil production? In other words, is the U.S. regulatory regime regarding cleanliness, safety and what not, similar 

to that that is going on in Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia? 

Could you talk about that for a minute? 

Mr. BORDOFF. We didn’t look at it in this study. I would say the 

answer is generally no. I think the U.S. has quite high regulatory 

and safety and environmental standards relative to many of the 

countries you just mentioned for oil production. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes, those are the primary other competing nations, 

correct? Did I miss anybody there? Canada, I suppose. 

Mr. BORDOFF. Yes, and Canada. If we think about where U.S. refineries are getting their oil from and the heavy crude that they 

are optimized to run we would be on the margin importing a little 

more from Canada and Venezuela along with Mexico and some others. Yes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Ms. Rosenberg, do you have any comments on that? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Nothing further, thank you. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Kretzmann, in light of that would you agree with Mr. 

Bordoff’s assessment? 

54

Mr. KRETZMANN. I think that there is certainly great room for 

improvement in U.S. oil production standards. 

Mr. RIBBLE. That wasn’t my question. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. But I hear your question and I think U.S. oil 

production standards are often higher than in some other countries, although perhaps not absolutely the top of the class worldwide. That said, I think the question implies——

Mr. RIBBLE. Who is top of the class worldwide? 

Mr. KRETZMANN. Norway, I think, is pretty good, and actually 

Brazilian offshore is also really good. But besides that the question 

implies that somehow U.S. oil production would replace other oil 

production, and the experience in the market over the last 6 

months makes it clear that it will just be added to ongoing production. And so——

Mr. RIBBLE. The question didn’t imply that at all. The question 

implied that U.S. regulatory regime is more stringent than other 

countries. That is all the question implied. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. Oh, I certainly assumed that what you were 

saying was wouldn’t you rather have U.S. oil than other oil, and 

that seems to be a reasonable conclusion to pull. And my point is, 

it is not a question of one or the other, it is actually going to be 

both. 

Mr. RIBBLE. But in light of that though then wouldn’t you say 

you would rather have cleaner production than less clean production? 

Mr. KRETZMANN. I would rather have less production. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I get that. You would rather have no production. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. Ultimately I would rather have production that 

brought us within climate limits. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Right. And I don’t know that in light of that, the approach of saying, ‘‘Let us get rid of production’’ is the fastest way 

to get at a cleaner climate. I think the faster way is to get at the 

user than it is to the producer. Producers respond to demand as opposed to creating demand. They respond to it. And if you can 

change that paradigm you are likely to reduce demand. However, 

I would say until that time comes—and let us face it. With CAFE 

standards and other things that have happened, things have gotten 

better rather than worse in light of carbon use. 

It just seems to me it would behoove global climate interest to 

have production happening in places that are cleaner and safer as 

opposed to places that are dirtier and less safe. And so it is almost 

like you are arguing against your position here. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. No, not at all. Producers actually impact demand quite a bit as we have seen over the last year. I mean the 

increase in production that has happened since the U.S. increase 

in production, which has been quite substantial over the last several years, and then the Saudis not responding by reducing their 

production has actually significantly lowered the price as we see 

and that in turn has increased global demand. And so producers 

obviously impact global demand, and that is an important part of 

the equation for us to consider from an economics perspective when 

thinking about how to influence the market. I mean this is a complex challenge about how to begin to wind down our global addiction to fossil fuels in order to respond to climate change. I think 

55

we all recognize that. But there are things that we have to do both 

on the supply and demand side in order to meet that challenge. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes, and I guess my only challenge to you in your 

thinking, and it is not necessarily related to the trade issue, is that 

as you look in the long view it seems to me that you are better off 

really accepting the fact that between now and where you would 

like to be there are maybe better processes to get there than the 

one that you are pursuing at this particular moment. That would 

just be my suggestion. 

Mr. Grumet, could you also help me understand a little bit better 

on how you come to the conclusion that gas prices would be lower 

even though oil prices would be higher? 

Mr. GRUMET. I don’t believe my testimony indicates that global 

oil prices would be higher. 

Mr. RIBBLE. But the U.S. produced oil would be sold at a higher 

price. 

Mr. GRUMET. The U.S. produced oil would be sold at the global 

market price. And I think the question for gasoline prices is the relationship between the refinery and the ultimate market. So the assumption that a discounted crude price, a refinery in the U.S. can 

get crude at $6 or $7 a barrel less than someplace else, is that that 

will somehow again altruistically be passed on to you and me. And 

that would be an irresponsible choice by a refiner with obligations 

to shareholders. 

What a refiner should do is seek the best price for their product. 

Because they of course appropriately have access to a global market, they will get the same price as any of the global competitors. 

And so the challenge of course is to find a way to have the benefits 

of a robust global market that creates consumer benefits and foreign policy benefits, and at the same time make sure that we have 

a dynamic economic situation here at home. 

Mr. RIBBLE. All right, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. And the chair recognizes the 

gentleman from California. Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have a lot of comments here. It may eat into my 

question time so the witnesses can relax for awhile. I talk to a lot 

of Ambassadors, as we all do, I never bring up oil. Oil is not—in 

sense of oil production, but I just ask them what is on their mind 

and none of them have ever said, gee, the most important thing is 

U.S. exports of oil. So I am not sure that we are going to get huge 

concessions on other trade issues by adopting the policies that 

three of our witnesses would like. 

As to the environment, environmentalists have not focused on 

the tremendous harm to the environment of wars in the Middle 

East. And the fact is that lower energy prices worldwide will drive 

down the power of the those who cause those wars. The most extreme example, well outside our discussion here, was already 

brought up, and that was Iran. Yes, Iran may be producing another 

million barrels a day. That may be bad for the environment. But 

if we reduce by 1 percent the likelihood that nuclear weapons are 

used and you weigh that against 1 million barrels a day, now I am 

not sure which you go to reduce the chance of a nuclear Iran, but 

whatever we can do to do that is a plus for the environment even 

if it means 1 million barrels a day. 

56

The idea that we should have bottlenecks and problems and restrictions to drive up the price of oil so that we have less carbon, 

maybe we should get rid of the bottlenecks and the problems and 

then have a tax to support infrastructure and that way we can 

have infrastructure instead of bottlenecks. 

As to rail transport, the only thing worse than bringing a train 

through my district loaded with crude is to bring a train through 

my district loaded with refined gasoline. And so if we encourage 

moving a lot of gasoline around so we can export it that might be 

worse. But I would hope that as part of the bill we put together 

we go even further than the administration already has in terms 

of safety of our oil by rail transportation. I think we are being 

given kind of a false choice. It is, stick with the present policy, 

which is kind of crazy, or lift all the barriers. Well, one thing we 

might do is go completely the other way and that is ban the export 

of refined petroleum. Make them give the discount to people who 

live in my district. That ought to be explored so that we can go in 

both directions. 

We can also take a look at our rules for exporting natural gas, 

which I know are unpopular with some members of the committee. 

But perhaps we can just go to that point instead of completely lifting the ban, and have the administration have to license the export. And I would point out that in the natural gas area, Americans are paying much less than the world price. Part of that is 

physics and the cost of transportation, but part of it might be our 

limitations on export. 

For those who support this idea, you might want to make it a 

little easier for us to vote for it. When people hear this they hear 

a threat to the security and price of the oil and the gasoline they 

buy at the pump. So you may want to explore the idea of expanding swaps and making it practical. One could imagine a situation 

where if you bring in a barrel of crude you get a chit. And if you 

want to export a barrel of crude you need a chit. I think the price 

of these chits would be about a penny a barrel, and that solves 99 

percent of your problem. Because if we can turn to people and say, 

yes, this is a swap, for every barrel we are exporting we are importing a barrel, a company is importing and exporting or is in 

partnership with the import or the export. That is very different 

than saying that you are going to take that oil from North Dakota 

or wherever, bring it to the Port of Los Angeles right by my thirsty 

consumers, and ship it to Japan, if that is the only part of the picture. 

We drive a lot in Southern California and that is, if this is part 

of a system for more efficient refinery and more efficient pricing 

that is swaps, that is a lot better picture to put forward than to 

see all that oil leave our country, until of course we all buy Teslas 

and then we will be able to do it. And I look forward to that day 

and I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman from California. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Judge Poe, and 

thank each of you for being here today. 

Mr. Grumet, do you believe that lifting the crude oil export ban 

would bolster the U.S. negotiating position on other trade issues? 

57

Mr. GRUMET. Mr. Wilson, thank you. I think that is an important 

point that a number of us have spoken to, and again it goes back 

to kind of a fundamental value question. The United States of 

America has always been, I think, the global leader in advocating 

for open markets, efficient and free trade. And we have a little bit 

of a challenge. There is a bit of a hypocrisy in suggesting to others 

that they share their riches with the world but we are somehow 

going to hold tight on this commodity. 

And again I think Mr. Bordoff makes the important point, that 

this is a policy that was adopted in a very different environment. 

It really was not designed to kind of be Fortress America, but that 

is the effect it is now having, and now in fact it actually does matter. Now we have a profound opportunity through this remarkable 

abundance that none of us predicted to reassert a voice in a global 

economy in a very, I think, challenging global environment. 

This is benefiting us in a myriad of ways. It is benefiting us in 

trade. It is benefiting us in our ability to provide opportunities to 

our European allies to fend off some of the manipulations of the 

Russians. It is enabling us to hold together coalitions around sanctions. So I think you have heard a lot of consistency at least from 

the first three witnesses that there is a very significant advantage 

to being part and a forceful player in this global market. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And thank you for your points. 

And Ms. Rosenberg, I am particularly interested in lifting the 

crude oil ban. What would be the effect on jobs? And I put it in 

the context of Keystone Pipeline that was with our Canadian allies, 

the bringing of crude product through our country. I know personally that almost 1,000 jobs, permanent jobs, would be created in a 

community that I represent. 

Michelin Tires makes the tires for Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. They are 12 feet high, $60,000 each, and nearly 500 jobs. And 

then MTU makes engines for the processing of the oil sands. Again 

you could get three engines in this room. They are very nice engines. And again nearly 500 jobs. A total of 1,000 jobs just in the 

district I represent. And so by lifting the ban, what would be the 

effect on jobs across our country? 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Thank you for the question. Essentially, lifting 

restrictions on crude exports sends a signal to those producers who 

find it difficult to access international benchmark prices for their 

crude to be able to access them, which drives an incentive for them 

to expand production, expand their market share. Broadly speaking, what that does is create additional jobs for those producers 

and for associated industries that support them in services in those 

communities, et cetera. 

Now the number of jobs that that will create there are different 

studies, they offer different numbers, and it is important to remember this is also a function of what the international oil price is. If 

it is particularly strong that will incentivize greater investment, 

and that is of course a cyclical, it is a cyclical market that moves 

up and down. I would defer to Jason Bordoff whose study has a 

particular comment on this if he wants to speak to it, but in broad 

terms it is true that job creation would be a function of lifting export restrictions. 

58

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And Mr. Bordoff, again an excellent report. And on the issue of jobs what do you see? 

Mr. BORDOFF. Well, our study didn’t estimate a particular number of jobs, but generally we had a range of the impact it could 

have on production. Our estimate was anywhere from zero to 1.2 

million barrels a day and it depends on a host of circumstances including how quickly U.S. production grows, how much of a price 

discount might otherwise emerge, how quickly refineries can adapt. 

But it is a function of how big an impact this has on U.S. production; so to the extent the export restriction is eased, the more significant an impact it has on increasing U.S. production, the more 

economic activity, the more employment you are going to see in the 

oil and gas sector in the U.S. The magnitude and timing of that 

impact is frankly highly uncertain, particularly given the price collapse that we have seen and what is happening to U.S. production, 

but directionally it is going to be positive. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Well, and I know personally, 

in fact my family, I understand the opportunities provided by the 

oil industry, the liberating, fulfilling lives that people can have. My 

great grandfather started with Standard Oil New Jersey in Virginia in 1895. My grandfather was the division manager at Standard Oil of New Jersey in South Carolina Esso, and then my dad 

was a sales representative for Exxon Humble, and I am very grateful in them. My brother was an oil jobber. 

So I know that the oil industry is very important to providing opportunity and I appreciate every effort to expand it for the benefit 

of jobs and opportunity and fulfilling lives to the American people. 

Mr. POE. Yield back? 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Yes, I do. 

Mr. POE. All right. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Castro. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman Poe, and thank you to each 

of the witnesses for your testimony this morning. Of course this is 

an issue. This is a policy, a longstanding policy, 30 years or so. We 

seem to be taking on a lot of these issues lately with Cuba being 

another one, and it seems to me that there are basically three 

issues here—one of geopolitics, another of environmental concerns, 

and third, the domestic business consideration that has expressed 

itself as a battle between producers and refiners. But I guess with 

those three things in mind, I have a few questions. 

First of all, if we were going to put together a bill that would lift 

the ban as it exists, whether it is a partial lifting or a complete lifting, what would the safeguards look like, right? So, for example, 

what if we were in a situation like the 1970s again where you had 

a scarcity of resources? What would the safeguards be that we 

would need to put in place to make sure that we don’t go through 

a situation like that again? I mean there was a reason that this 

ban was put in place back then, right? If we are in a situation like 

that again what do we do? 

And then the second part is, since this is kind of the first round 

of discussions about this, if you were going to design a grander bargain, a larger bill where you would allow for some perhaps partial 

lifting of this ban, but also an infusion of resources or the support 

59

of policies to develop alternative energies, what would that look 

like? What would a grander bargain look like? Please. 

Mr. GRUMET. Well, as the Bipartisan Policy Center we love grand 

bargains, Mr. Castro, so I am going to take a shot, I think maybe 

try to address the second part of your question first. I think the 

first point is that while the benefits economically, I believe, strongly outweigh the costs, and there will be costs, there will be a handful of refiners, a few in the Northeast, who are clearly going to 

have to struggle with this recalibrating market. And I believe that 

the Congress is going to have hopefully look to opportunities to 

smooth that transitional challenge. I have yet to see a specific proposal to do so. 

There is not a lot of conversation: I mean I love phasing and all 

those kinds of ideas, but I think there is a certain reluctance upon 

the part of those who feel that they might be injured to suggest a 

path forward because they believe it will in fact make it easier for 

you to pursue that path. I think as the debate becomes more and 

more serious and this becomes, I think, what it will be which is an 

inevitable move to change policy, I think those ideas will come forward. I certainly hope——

Mr. CASTRO. What would you do? What safeguards would you 

put in place? 

Mr. GRUMET. You are asking another important question which 

is what happens if something changes, right? I mean all of a sudden the oil market is certainly proven to be volatile. The President, 

in current law, has significant authority to make decisions in the 

national security interest to right now allow exports in contradiction to the ban, and I certainly think that that authority should be 

mandated or, sorry, preserved and even strengthened in reverse. So 

once this market, I think, is opened and we have the opportunity 

to engage in the international stage, the President certainly must 

have a sustained authority to interrupt those exports if necessary 

to ensure the security interests of the nation. And so I think the 

way one crafts that is important, but that it an important aspect 

of this debate that I certainly hope Congress continues to pursue. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Ms. ROSENBERG. Following on that briefly, I think there are two 

main elements of the question that you just asked. And the first 

one is how do we make the U.S. economy its most resilient version 

in order to protect U.S. consumers from the circumstances of the 

1970s that were so economically painful, particularly deriving from 

energy sector changes, dramatic changes? 

And the second element of your question I see is that what are 

the reassurances that you could put, the policy measures particularly including reassurances that you could put into a piece of legislation that give consumers the confidence to know that in fact this 

policy is consistently on an ongoing basis performing in a way that 

benefits them and additionally that maintains for the executive 

branch the ability to put the brakes on if circumstances merit? 

And speaking to that particular issue, the way to provide information, there are a variety of ways to do that. One popular way 

is to ask the EIA, for example, to produce regular public information and updates as they have done in the past but specific to this 

policy which would give consumers the confidence to know that this 

60

is working to their advantage. Additionally as we just mentioned, 

the policy that gives the administration the ability to restrict exports if that makes sense in circumstances would do so. 

Mr. CASTRO. Let me have 20 seconds. 

Mr. BORDOFF. I just want to very quickly—I am sorry. I was just 

going to answer your question which is if the President allows exports under a national interest determination, he can revoke it. 

EPCA allows the immediate issuance of regulations to restrict exports without seeking public comments in the event of a true supply emergency and disruption. And if Congress repealed the ban it 

could give the President authority to re-ban, or the Secretary of 

Commerce could impose controls under the Export Administration 

Act, short supply controls, or potentially the President can invoke 

his emergency authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to limit crude oil exports. So authorities exist in 

the event of a true emergency like the 1970s. 

Mr. CASTRO. Okay, I am out of time but can I just make a final 

comment, Chairman? Thank you. That I think it is going to be difficult to lift that ban carte blanche. That there is going to have to 

be safeguards in place and I think we ought to consider whether 

there is an opportunity to also support alternative energies if this 

is going to happen. So thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for his comments. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Mr. Bordoff, in 

your testimony you mentioned several times about these trains, 

about dangerous long trains. No, but I think you did too and I 

caught that. Maybe I am mistaken. 

Well, then I won’t ask you the question. I will just suggest which 

is the next—well, let me ask you this then. Did your organization 

support the Keystone Pipeline? No, no, Mr. Bordoff. 

Mr. BORDOFF. I am a professor at Columbia University. We don’t 

take institutional positions on particular issues. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, did you support the Keystone Pipeline? 

Mr. BORDOFF. I have said that with Keystone, I think we should 

be focusing on the issues that really matter to achieve meaningful 

reductions in climate change and carbon emissions, and I think a 

decision in either direction on Keystone doesn’t have a huge impact 

on affecting greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, first of all, let me just note that—is it 

Kretzmann? 

Mr. KRETZMANN. Yes, that is right. Kretzmann. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Kretzmann, first of all, let me say that 

it is refreshing to have someone as open and honest as you are 

about your positions testifying before us. Most of the people who 

come here opposing the pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, and supporting all of these various controls are not as open about what 

their goal really is, and you honestly have expressed you want us 

to end oil production. You are not in favor of any more oil production and would shut down oil production now if you could. And that 

is, frankly, refreshing to hear someone being this open about this 

because that is not what we get. 

61

And in terms of your motive, I understand and appreciate it, the 

fact that you believe that production of CO2, which goes hand in 

glove with oil production in our country, that that is harmful to the 

world environment via a theory that CO2, increased CO2, will increase the temperature of the planet. 

Let me just note, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

at this point, to be put in the record, the name of 10 prominent scientists from around the United States who totally disagree with 

that particular theory that more CO2 means that there will be 

higher temperatures. 

Mr. POE. Without objection it will be made part of the record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And so, and I know there are other scientists 

who disagree with that. So we have people who are prominent scientists on both sides of this issue, and I can’t help but notice, however, that the predictions based on that particular theory haven’t 

been coming true in the last 18 years based on—I mean I can remember the debate that we have had here, where several scientists 

were quoted as saying we are going to reach a tipping point, and 

the tipping point will be a major jump within a very short period 

of time of temperature. And not only have we not seen this tipping 

point and major jump in temperature, but there has been a basically no increase in temperature for 18 years, yet the CO2 rates 

have gone up. 

So just my, the scientists that I am talking about as well as my 

common sense tells me, we shouldn’t be basing policy or energy policy on that theory. And I respect the fact that you are an intelligent 

person and the people who you have spoken to are intelligent, but 

we have a difference of opinion on that. And I would think that trying to implement what you have honestly expressed, which I believe is not being honestly expressed by others, would mean a 

major decline in the standard of living of our people. And I would 

appreciate an honest discussion, so thank you for being here and 

being open in your testimony today. But I will give you 30 seconds 

to refute everything I said. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. That may take a little bit longer but I will 

make some reference quickly. Thank you for your honesty, Congressman. On a variety of different things I would say that it is 

quite clear the majority of, the vast majority, 97 percent of climate 

scientists are completely clear on the dangers associated with climate change. And I would like to submit for the record the contents of skepticalscience.com, in which you will find the questions 

that are often posed by people who are questioning climate change 

and answers from climate scientists. So if that would be possible 

I would love to do that. 

Re your question about not observing temperature changes, you 

should look at the temperature of water. Because the oceans have 

been absorbing the heat over the several decades and that is where 

the heat is going and they are pretty much done with absorbing the 

heat, now we are going to see the rest of it jump up very high. That 

is what the scientists tell me. 

I do not want to bring oil production to zero immediately. That 

would be irresponsible and disastrous. However, it is clear that if 

we can, we will need to cut oil production and fossil fuel use down 

to essentially zero by 2050. That is a long time particularly for a 

62

country as great as ours that can put a man on the moon and do 

anything we want to. I believe we can make this transition, and 

I believe we can do it in a way that will be healthy for our economy 

and great for our communities and we will all have a better standard of living at the end of it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you for expressing that vision. I disagree with it but——

Mr. KRETZMANN. That is not a surprise. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. I appreciate that. Thank you so 

much, Mr. Kretzmann. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. Yields back. The chair recognizes the ranking member for a final comment. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, since my colleague and friend wanted to submit 10 different scientific references against climate change, I would like unanimous consent to 

put in a paper reflecting the 12,000 peer reviewed scientific articles, 97 percent of which indicate climate change exists as well. 

Mr. POE. If you have those names they will be submitted to the 

record. 

Mr. KRETZMANN. I can get names for you. 

Mr. KEATING. And just in closing, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Thank the witnesses. And I think each of you in your own 

way really gave important information and I appreciate your testimony. I would just say too there is another cost that, really, it is 

hard to quantify perhaps besides just the cost in the Northeast, the 

potential with the refineries contracting more, and that is the cost 

of climate change. I have the highest yielding dollar fish industry 

in that city of New Bedford that I represent and climate change 

has affected drastically the fishing industry. 

And also in terms of the flooding and the erosion, our tourist industry is threatened and is threatened right now from that. And 

look at the cost of the historic snowfalls that the Northeast and my 

state in particular have suffered through. So I have left the cost 

of spills and mitigation of that and clean-ups as well. So there is 

costs all the way around and I think it is an important discussion 

to have. And I appreciate the witness and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to have this hearing. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. And just a final word. I am very 

concerned about the loss of jobs because of the recent developments, 50 percent of the rigs in the state of Texas have been shut 

down since Thanksgiving; 70,000 people have lost their jobs. I 

think it is important that we at least treat America the same way 

we treat the Iranians. If we lift the ban on exporting Iranian oil 

we ought to lift the ban on exporting American oil. I think it makes 

sense. It is a national security issue. It is also an energy issue, and 

it is a jobs issue as well. 

But I do thank all of the panelists for being here and the members who have participated in this lively discussion. The subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(63)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

64

f


94178n.eps
65

f


94178m.eps
66


94178e-1.eps
67


94178e-2.eps
68

f


94178e-3.eps
69

Æ


94178f.eps