american petroleum institute said there will be quote huge political consequences unquote i mean he's mr big oil and he has the resources to back up his threats so good on the white house for being willing to just stay brave in the face of that kind of threat now we need the democrats in the senate to do the same thing and one of the pieces of good news today was that chuck schumer from new york one of the people we were worried about because he hadn't said that he was going to really stand firm on this he came out to souter noone in said you know what. i'm going to work hard with harry reid to make sure that no amendment about keystone makes its way through. meanwhile to sefton newman the white house issued basically a veto threat to the house transportation bill citing their plans to revive keystone as one of the reasons so. god knows how this will come out if we win in the lifetime run it'll be a minor miracle maybe a kind of major miracle but what we're showing today is that the environmental movement has found its voice again anyone who thought it was kind of graying into irrelevance is wro

mr. big money, big oil, big business himself, going after vulture capitalism?ey hear newt gingrich, who has built a career out claiming to be the winston churchill of the free marketplace -- trashing mitt romney for doing, oh my god, how dare he do that, taking bad companies, firing people and making them more productive? that had to be -- >> that was one of the most destabilizing things that a lot of these finance executives could hear. they could always rely on republicans to be defenders of capitalism in the free market to hear a sort of progressive far left attack coming from within the republican party. the politics -- >> of rick perry. are getting so scrambled. essentially it's just populism. on the left and the right. they know it's out there. and i think they're trying to triangle late to see if they can find a way through. >> dan, what makes newt gingrich and mitt romney sound like nyu grad students from occupy wall street? >> it's gingrich and perry. >> did i say romney? >> yeah. >> maybe gabe is on to something. maybe populism is spreading. >> with g

the republican love letter to big oil -- >> mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: members will be reminded not to traffic the well when other members are speaking. the gentlelady may continue. ms. castor: the republican love letter to bill oil may be the kiss to big death to the economy and families that rely on tourism and that is in the state of florida. this bill puts job at risk to allow big oil to drill anywhere including unique and sensitive areas across america. republican leadership has made it clear, they are willing to sell america to the highest bidder. i'm here to say america is not for sale. is nothing sacred is nothing off limits? how about mount vernon, would we drill there if we could make a few bucks. how about getties burg? why not check grandma and grandpa's back yard, you are trying to take away their medicare, so why not start there. there are places in america that are not for sale and should be protected and my amendment provides a cap. here's the cap -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

mr. rush: we were sent here to protect them and not to let big oil companies come in and just take take their land. mr. terry: there's a legal process set up and the only thing they're taking away -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska will suspend. the gentleman from illinois' time has expired. the chair would ask members not to interject during comments of another member. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman from illinois requests a roll call. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. murphy: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. speaker. the chair: the cler

mr. diewarn, briefly expectations about the future play a big royal ol' in oil price formation. when you look at the ted amount of swear post -- it's that limited amount of spare cassity and this fear and concern about disrupted oil supplies that are keeping prices high. they could even i go g higher despite the weak economy. >> mr. diwan? >> i largely agree with ambassador jones. i think that men who have been working between 100 and 120 with a floor due to -- it's exactly what we're in. we have two risks going on. one is the financial disruption in europe, the other is the conflict in the middle east. that's the risk we're fairing in 2012. neither of which occur, we're very likely to stay until that band. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me ask dr. gruenspech stlau in your sm here that they're a fuel of liquid fuels dropped from 49% last year -- not last year but 2010, to 27 percent in 2014 and 23 by 20, by. >> this was made not including as a result of the fuel economy standards. you have calculated if these fuel economy sand ard which have been announced by the situation and

mr. speaker? who's the beneficiary of lower fuel prices? is it exxon mobil no? is it a big plastics plant? the big beneficiary, mr. speaker, of lower oil prices are american families. the big beneficiary when american energy prices drob, our american workers, the big beneficiary when we make these easy decisions when we look to american resources first, the big beneficiary is the american economy. should have been an easy call mr. speaker. should have been an easy call. i know you believe that. i know you believe that. "washington post" believes that. mr. speaker, i don't know how well's find that true voice in the president's state of the union speech. you know, there is so much double speak it's tough to know what folks are actually saying. . i wanted to be able to remember it. here's what the president says. we have a supply of natural gas that can last america nearly 100 years. and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy because experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. mr. speaker, it's up to you and me. we have to hold the president accountable for t

mr. diwan, anything, briefly, that you would add to that? >> very briefly, expectations about the future play a big role in oil price formation, and when you look at the limited amount of spare capacity, we estimate it's around 1.8 to 2.5 million barrels per day, call it 2 for this year, there's a reasonable case to be made that iranian exports could have some degree of disruption this year. which would eat into spare capacity. so it's that limited amount of spare capacity and this fear, concern, about disrupted oil supplies that are keeping prices high. they could even go higher, despite the weak economy . >> mr. diwan? >> i largely agree with ambassador jones. i think that men have been working at 100 to 120 is exactly what we are in. however, we have really two tail end risk going on right now. one the financial crisis in europe. the other one is conflict in the middle east. so these two, in a way, can blow up that range. and that's the risk we're facing in 2012, if neither of which occur, we're very likely to stay. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. let me ask dr. gruenspecht, you have in your testimony here that net petro

big oil companies are reaping all the rewards. while americans are being left behind to fix the fences. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. thompson. i'm going to defer my five minutes of questions and at this time recognize the gentleman from kansas for his five minutes of questions. >> thank you. i begin by asking unanimous consent to enter into the record an article that appeared in the "wall street journal" february 1st written by ted olson. >> without objection. >> thank you. you know, i understand that mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. he called this hearing. he asked for witnesses to come. but the incredible political nature of it became really parent when he had his chance to ask questions. he had five minutes. i watched the clock. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. so he drawed two folks out from the united states government, brought them here this morning us asentencebly because he was keenly interested, he thought it was critical that the committee hear from them. they got between two and two 1/2 questions, 29 seconds. it didn't appear to me that there was anything but blatant politics, a cha

big oil. he's voted with bush 95% of the time. barack obama will make energy unless an urgent priority. >> well, now, in fairness, mr. obama's plan for energy differs sharply from the current gop talking points, but it's based on the shaky assumption that policy makes a difference at the pump, and he wasn't the first to do what republican candidates are doing now. 2006, democrats blame bush for higher gas prices. so is this just a case of what is gas for the goose is gas for the gander? joining us, rich galen who is associated with the pickens plan. which focuses on america's energy issues and hillary rosen. apologize for the pun there. you say the price of gas is absolutely a winning issue for republicans. you thing it's a winning issue for republicans? >> winning issue for republicans because there happens to be a democrat in the white house. if the situation were reversed, it would be a winning issue for the democrats. to protect the president in this regard, every president 6 richard nixon at least has said, elect me and we'll have energy unless. first, we're not going to have energy unless because two of three b

big reason between that and toothbrushes. oil is the number one security risk to our country. >> we're actually importing less crude oil than we were. my time has expired.? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think mr. markey understands that his amendment is not going to pass. but as mr. doyle said it is instructive and gets us into a real debate. and maybe it's economic heresy that supply is not going to determine price that'sreity. i have already indicated i'm for increased domestic production. i'm for the keystone so we still have the producers in north american as opposed to the middle east. i understand that concept. and it is an important one. but i have members on the other side depicting the oil industry much like it was depicted in the movie "giant" with elizabeth taylor and rock hudson and james dean. it's changed. it's totally different. what i'm hearing over there, i'm just assuming this because i have never been in the oil and gas business, but if transcanada is producing the oil are we saying that they're going to put it in this pipeline and then they're going to find some end user wherever it's going to be stored or whatever? my understanding is thathe port tha

big oil. he's voted with bush 95% of the time. barack obama will make energy unless an urgent priority. >> well, now, in fairness, mr. obama's plan for energy differs sharply from the current gop talking points, but it's based on the shaky assumption that policy makes a difference at the pump, and he wasn't the first to do what republican candidates are doing now. 2006, democrats blame bush for higher gas prices. so is this just a case of what is gas for the goose is gas for the gander? joining us, rich galen who is associated with the pickens plan. which focuses on america's energy issues and hillary rosen. apologize for the pun there. you say the price of gas is absolutely a winning issue for republicans. you thing it's a winning issue for republicans? >> in wiwinning issue for repubs because there happens to be a democrat in the white house. if the situation were reversed, it would be a winning issue for the democrats. to protect the president in this regard, every president 6 richard nixon at least has said, elect me and we'll have energy unless. first, we're not going to have energy unless because two of three b

candidate and the big oil companies are reaping all the rewards, while americans are being left behind to fix the fences. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. thompson. appreciate your opening statement to i'm going to defer my five minutes of questions, and at this time recognize mr. pompeo of kansas for his five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i begin by asking in his consent to enter into record an article that appeared in "the wall street journal" february 1 written by ted olsen. thank you. you know, i understand that mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. he told visiting. he he asked for witnesses to come, but the incredible political nature of it became apparent when he had his chance to as question. he had five minutes. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. so he brought to folks out from the united states government, brought to you this way, ostensibly because he was keenly interested. he thought it was absolutely critical that this committee hear from them, and he got between two and two and have questions been on how you count the 29 seconds. it didn't appear to me that there was anything but blatant p

big oil companies and other polluters that fund their campaign. leadership has been terrible. there are new members of congress that had the highest scores like mrm new hampshire. on a relative basis they were among the highest in republicans. there are republicans. historically, a lot of republicans understood this issue and our real leaders. sadly, most recently, in the congress there are not as many people, and the leadership in both houses has been anti- environmental. we need republicans to support these issues. host: looking at a story last fall in "rolling stone" that highlights 10 things obama must do to protect the environment. president obama said future generations would remember his election as lending climate began to kill. -- heal. environmentalists are -- that the indictment begin to heal. environmentalists have been disappointed. are you supporting president obama? are there things he must to do? guest: there are things we have been disappointed in. we supported him in 2008. we supported him in 2004 when hardly anyone ever heard of barack obama. he has made a lot of progress on a lot of issues. the challenge of addressing climate

big oil companies and other polluters that fund their campaign. leadership has been terrible. there are new members of congress that had the highest scores like mr. bass from new hampshire. on a relative basis they were among the highest in republicans. there are republicans. historically, a lot of republicans understood this issue and our real leaders. sadly, most recently, in the congress there are not as many people, and the leadership in both houses has been anti- environmental. we need republicans to support these issues. host: looking at a story last fall in "rolling stone" that highlights 10 things obama must do to protect the environment. president obama said future generations would remember his election as lending climate began to kill. environmentalists are -- that the indictment begin to heal. environmentalists have been disappointed. are you supporting president obama? guest: there are things we have been disappointed in. we supported him in 2008. we supported him in 2004 when hardly anyone ever heard of barack obama. his middle lot of progress and a lot of issues. -- he has made a lot of progress on a lot of issues. the challenge o

mr. speaker, the american people, let's talk about the american people. they have rejected the republican budget scheme that ends medicare guarantee to pay for tax breaks for big oil, millionaires and corporations that ship jobs overseas. because for the last year if you're not a c.e.o. or a wealthy special interest, the republican party of the 1% says you're on your own. i often wonder what they meant when they said the ownership society, what they really mean is the you're on your own society. they mean, hey, we got to cut cities and towns and we got to cut states and we can't be there for you anymore, you are on your own. we're going to lay off teachers, we're going to not give the cities enough to make sure there's enough police, water, fire, all that stuff. you're on your own. but m.i.t. m.i.t.'s not on his own -- mitt romney's not on his own. if you need a bailout you're not on your own. but if your house is underwater, don't look to the majority for help. if your father, who lost his job through no fault of your own, a mother struggling to make ends meet or a family kicked out of your home, the majority of the 1% says you're on your own. turning their backs

big oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the midwest, a conduit for exporting our projects to canada and exploitation of the tar sands at maximum speed regardless of the consequences. mr. obama listened to the views of american citizens and made irresponsible decision. he would not approve the pipeline through the ecologically fragile area of nebraska. the state department would consider alternative routes. nebraska has taken the time to find a route that is acceptable. the president is making sure he has all the information he needs to make the right decision. this bill takes the opposite approach. it gives the pipeline an unprecedented regulatory your mark. it directs the federal energy regulatory commission to approve the pipeline even though we do not yet know what route it will take through the state of nebraska. it exempts them from obtaining permits before crossing wetlands. it takes away the department of the interior authority to protect sensitive public lands. for a year, i have been asking a simple question. who benefits from this extraordinary congressional intervention in the regulatory process? last year, reuters reported koch industries would be one of