On the recordMarch 7, 2012
Well, I'm saddened, but of course not surprised, that my friend on the other side would not want a simple amendment to study the effect of oil speculation on the price of oil because it doesn't fit the political narrative. So while we're trying to have a very narrow narrative that somehow it's the responsibility of a particular administration in terms of the rise in the price of oil, I think the American consumer and American innovators and American start- up companies and entrepreneurs are actually entitled to know what percentage of the increase in a barrel of oil and at the pump is in fact due to oil speculators and financial institutions that the other side of this House wants to protect. With respect to the Keystone pipeline--with all due respect to my colleague--it's 5,000 jobs, not 20,000 shovel-ready jobs. The Washington Post did an exhaustive study of the number of jobs that would be created, and they were all temporary. At most, 50 to 60 permanent jobs would be created. The other thing my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about about Keystone is that almost all of that oil is going to go to Port Arthur, Texas, for export, not for domestic consumption. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to contend otherwise, then let's support an amendment right here and now that says that pipeline can be produced and built so long as all of that oil is for domestic consumption. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.





