Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, today marks the 2,104th day since the original Keystone XL pipeline application was filed at the U.S. State Department, as required by law. For 5 years, this administration has either just been completely incompetent or has, for political purposes, decided to placate its radical environmental political base--the very same folks who said that they would boycott the election if he signed this permit.

Regardless, this administration's failure to make a decision on a single project in over 2,100 days should leave every one of our constituents shaking his head. I have led on this issue, and we have given this President numerous opportunities to get this process right, which he has not done to date.

I introduced the first bill in May of 2011 to turn on the shock clock for the President's decision. The bill passed, and it was even signed into law, but, later, he went ahead and killed the permit instead of following through. Later that year, on December 1, we introduced a second bill to move the decision from the State Department to FERC. In June 2012, we introduced another bill, declaring no Presidential permit is needed for a border crossing. Then last year, in March, I introduced H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, which stated that no Presidential permit shall be required for the Keystone XL pipeline.

We are doing this because we understand that, if we are energy independent, we are more secure. This is an issue of national security, and we are going to take as many whacks at trying to get this passed as it takes. The legislation we are considering today is almost 5 years in the making, and I am happy to join with Chairman Upton in supporting this bill that comes from our committee with bipartisan support.

As our energy future and security go, so go our economy and our Nation. The President has failed in his leadership. He has hurt job creation, hurt our economy, has made us more dependent on OPEC and Venezuela, and has diminished our standing with our Nation's number one trading partner. His failure to lead on this issue shows that his process is clearly broken.

Today, we consider a different process, and if signed into law, the Department of Commerce would be in charge of permitting oil pipelines that cross our border, which would be based on the same standard of whether it is in our national interest. FERC would be in charge of permitting natural gas pipelines that cross our border. The Department of Energy would be in charge of permitting electrical transmission lines that come over our border--again, under the same standard of: Is it in our national interest? Where I come from, that is called common sense. We need to take the election politics out of this and go with the experts, who will determine whether or not, based on the facts, it is in the national interest.

I appreciate all of that.

Mr. Chairman, by the way, I would disagree with the last speaker on whether or not there would be no environmental oversight. The State Department has over 10,000 pages of environmental studies that were done.

Even under this process, where you let the experts in the respective areas do their job, if there is a Federal trigger in here, all of that has to occur, just like with any other project.

Now, we also heard that there would be this tremendous amount of natural gas exporting without permitting. What was left out of that sentence is that, for there to be an export facility, it has to be permitted, and all of the environmental studies and all of the other studies that are required will be done on behalf of the export facility.

So I think we need to put those in context because you just can't have half the facts laying out there. You need all the facts to make the decision.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and his staff for their hard work and steadfast leadership that got something accomplished that took over 7 years to get to this point. Great job.

This is the way the Constitution was meant for Congress to work, by setting priorities in the light of day rather than an administration funding pet projects behind closed doors.

I am pleased the conferees included as a priority, based on the merits, the Western Sarpy-Clear Creek flood control project allowing it to be finished. With passage, the Western Sarpy-Clear Creek flood project will protect about 443 homes and buildings, 17,000 acres of agriculture and cropland, as well as the major drinking water pipelines and wells for Lincoln and Omaha and the Nebraska Army National Guard's training grounds and portions of Interstate 80 and Highway 6.

My constituents are all too familiar with the economic consequences that occur when flooding happens. But it is this kind of work the American people expect from this body and now is delivered. We need to take care of our infrastructure and look forward in planning for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Col. Robert (Bob) Pelletier, who will retire this year from the United States Army Reserve after 30 years of outstanding service.

Col. Pelletier's career has spanned decades and he has served in various places all over the world including Kuwait, Iraq, Korea, Honduras, Germany, and Afghanistan. He served in both Operation Desert Storm and the Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In 1984 following graduation from The Citadel in South Carolina, Col. Pelletier entered helicopter flight school at Fort Rucker in Alabama. After completing flight school, Pelletier served in the 4th Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment until January of 1989, holding various leadership assignments during his tenure.

In June of 1989, he began his tenure as commander of the Headquarters and Service Company in Kuwait and Iraq. While in the Middle East, Col. Pelletier also served as a Plans and Operation Officer playing an important role in coordinating the United States' efforts in Operation Desert Storm.

At the conclusion of his service in the Middle East, Col. Pelletier continued his service overseas, first in Musan, Korea and later in Honduras, before returning home to the United States in 1995. Col. Pelletier landed in Omaha, NE, after he joined the United States Army Reserves and was placed as the Maintenance Branch Chief of the 561st Corps Support Group.

In 2003, Col. Pelletier traveled to Germany and Kuwait along with the 3rd COSCOM to offer support in Operation Iraqi Freedom becoming the Director of Rail Operations and Reconstruction until March of 2004.

In January of 2009, Col. Pelletier became the Department of Army's Liaison to the Governor of Nebraska for Homeland Security and Defense, a position through which he has offered superb service to the state of Nebraska.

Col. Pelletier has been decorated with many awards for his outstanding service including the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf and a Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf. He is also the recipient of the Joint Service Commendation Medal along with the Army Achievement Medal.

Col. Pelletier and his wife, Terry are current residents of Omaha, NE where he is a Regional Operations Manager for the Union Pacific Railroad.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Col. Robert Pelletier for his outstanding 30 years of service to our country and the state of Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is absolutely necessary when we look at the facts as we know them currently and we look at the information that we are uncertain about. Number one is we have lost four people in an attack that we now know is a terrorist attack. We now know that some things could have been done to save these people, but for some reason they weren't done.

Now, Beirut has been raised a couple of times, showing the cooperation between Speaker Tip O'Neill then and Ronald Reagan when we lost 241 soldiers in that attack. I remember it vividly. But the difference is how the leadership between then and now reacted.

The leadership at the White House responded to this attack by developing a false narrative to--probably, we don't know why they came up with this fake story about an impromptu protest gone bad, therefore causing these deaths, so if they are making up a story, what are they trying to hide? Their own incompetence? We don't know that.

We talked about then in Beirut, as my friends from the other side of the aisle had mentioned, about all of the documents that were received in the Beirut investigation. Well, that is because they were cooperative. The documents that we received, despite what the gentleman from Virginia just said, that they were subpoenaed incorrectly, the documents we received were heavily redacted. They were purposely not providing that information. It was redacted.

Now, why was that redacted? Why was it that we had to find out some of the truth about the coverup that occurred on that narrative about a protest gone bad from an outside group that provided the unredacted? So, now, what we have before us is an email that was redacted from the White House and another one that was obtained through an outside source that provided us the same but unredacted that says now that the White House was telling us something different.

When you have a White House that has gone out of their way to cover up the truth, it is incumbent upon all of us on both sides of the aisle to fight for the truth so that the four people that lost their lives-- one of which an Ambassador, for God's sake--they are the ones that deserve justice by this select committee.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield now? Because that is absolutely wrong, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Now, I think tyranny is worth discussing because when we look at what we are here to do today, it is to declare Lerner in contempt.

There is nothing more uniquely un-American than abusing the public's trust to target fellow countrymen based on their political beliefs. This is something--when you target your political enemies--that Lerner did and the IRS did, and you reward by expediting the President's own political operation. So you punish your enemies and you reward your friends--this is Soviet-style governance.

I would think everyone on both sides of the aisle would be very, very vociferous in opposition to what the IRS was doing to the American public. We only hear criticism now from the other side of our proceeding. My friends on

the other side of the dais have, no doubt, viewed this as a partisan witch-hunt. But let there be no mistake: we would not be here today if Ms. Lerner had not conducted her own partisan witch-hunt.

What Lois Lerner did is completely un-American, and it undermines the very fundamentals of the principles of what this country is founded upon; and if we don't hold Lois Lerner accountable for her actions--and this is about accountability in the government--then we are sending a message to future administrations that this type of Nixonian behavior is acceptable. Let's not send that message.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank my colleagues on the VA-MilCon Subcommittee--in particular, Mr. Fortenberry and Mr. Culberson and their staff--for their excellent work on this legislation in helping me facilitate this amendment and discussion.

I also want to thank, of course, the committee staff, who has just been wonderful.

My amendment would require that no funds in this appropriations bill shall be used for the administrative expenses until the Secretary meets with the Nebraska delegation. The Secretary's calendar should never be so busy that he cannot meet with an entire delegation.

Mr. Chairman, on June 6 of 2013--almost 11 months ago--our delegation asked for a meeting with Secretary Shinseki. When I say ``delegation,'' I mean all of the House Members and both Senators signed on to this letter, which I will submit for the Record.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2013.

Hon. Eric K. Shinseki,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Shinseki: We respectfully ask for a personal

meeting with you to discuss the current state of the Veterans

Affairs (VA) hospital in Omaha, Nebraska.

We are pleased that Omaha is on the VA's construction list

and as such will someday have a new facility built. However,

as number 18 out of 20 on the VA's major construction

projects list, the reality seems to indicate that there is a

small chance a new facility will be built by the end of the

decade. As the condition of the current facility continues to

deteriorate and the new hospital's timeline continues to

slide, veterans in the Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care

System will be placed at risk of not receiving the proper

health care that they have come to know and deserve.

The situation with the Omaha VA hospital is dire. The

management and staff are doing their best, but unforeseen

circumstances have provided obstacles to ensuring our

veterans receive quality care. For example, operating rooms

were closed in March 2013 due to failing humidifiers. Though

the situation is being addressed, we are concerned that the

aging facility will only continue to face operational

challenges and will continue to require significant

maintenance in order to keep it functioning until a new

facility can be built. Another major issue is the condition

of the boilers, air conditioners, and emergency generators.

Without replacement soon the Omaha VA Hospital could face

major shutdowns for complex and costly replacements of this

equipment.

The veterans of Nebraska and western Iowa, who rely on this

declining facility, need to know that the VA has valid and

viable plans in place to continue the excellent care they

receive without avoidable interruptions or endangerment to

their health and welfare. We ask that you meet with us to

discuss these items so we, as the Nebraska delegation, can

communicate to and alleviate the concerns of our veteran

constituents.

Several questions we would like to discuss with you

include:

How does the VA establish funding priorities for

construction of new VA hospitals and whether or not the major

construction list will be re-evaluated based on the current

status of existing facilities?

When is Omaha's facility reasonably expected to begin

physical construction?

What is the VA's plan to fund unexpected and required

repairs to continue Omaha's operations until a new facility

is completed?

What is preventing the VA from placing higher priority on

seriously degrading facilities such as the Omaha VA hospital?

What are other possible solutions/options for a new

hospital and is the VA open to exploring these possibilities?

Please let us know as soon as possible as to your

availability to meet in June. Time is of the essence. Please

ask your staff to coordinate with Katie Amacio, scheduler for

Senator Johanns, at kathleen_amacio@johanns

.senate.gov. Ms. Amacio will coordinate with the rest of the

delegation.

We look forward to working with you to best serve our

nation's cherished heroes, our veterans.

Sincerely,

Lee Terry,

Member of Congress,

Adrian Smith,

Member of Congress,

Jeff Fortenberry,

Member of Congress,

Mike Johanns,

United States Senator,

Deb Fischer,

United States Senator.

Now, the purpose of this inquiry was to discuss some health care alternatives for the VA Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System. Our hospital for 170,000 area veterans is in serious disrepair--boilers, HVAC, emergency generators. The very sewer and water pipes are literally duct-taped together. We have heard that it is the second worst hospital infrastructure in all of their hospital inventory. Even last March, the operating rooms had to be closed down due to failing humidifiers. We are talking about the basic functioning of this hospital that is out of date.

Without replacement soon, the hospital could face additional major shutdowns for the complex and costly replacements of this infrastructure. Currently, we are on the list to be built somewhere around '18-'20, but the reality is, for years now, the list hasn't moved. Now our VA employees are being told that it will be somewhere in the 2021-2022 range. I fear it will be even later than that before the new inpatient tower can be built.

Why do we need to talk to the general, or to Secretary Shinseki, about this hospital?

It is that there are alternatives available in our community that we need to discuss with the decision maker.

I will tell you that, even though we made the request in June of 2013--as we head into May of 2014 now--they did get back to us in November of '13 when they said that we could meet with a low-level employee. So the entire delegation rewrote a letter in November, rejecting a meeting with the low-level employee. We need to meet with the Secretary, the decision maker, on these types of alternatives that would be available and that are, frankly, much cheaper than the $600 million budgeted.

The Secretary then did call back in December when the House was out of session and when the Senate was wrapping up, I think it was, the debt resolution issue for Friday, but even the Senators left on Wednesday. They at late notice scheduled a meeting, but that was when no one was here. We have made numerous requests for additional meetings to discuss these great options that would be available. Some of them would involve a leaseback type of provision by which people would put up the money, build the hospital, and then lease it back, reducing the burdens on the VA's budget, but we have no one to talk to. That is why I am saying let's hold back the administrative budget until the head of the administration for the VA meets with the Nebraska delegation on this really important safety and health issue for our veterans.

I yield to my colleague, Jeff Fortenberry, from Lincoln, Nebraska.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.

I think the language is innovative and absolutely necessary, and I compliment you on your perseverance on this issue as well and on the insertion of this language into the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the lend-lease or the leaseback provisions could be helpful. There are at least two community options that, I think, are highly credible options. One of them would be a leaseback type of option. The VA does that on clinics, but they refuse to do it on hospitals.

The Secretary mentioned he was open to the language that you have inserted, which is a great step forward. Was he open to actually meeting with the delegation on the options that our community is putting forward?

I am intending, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment at the end of the gentleman's 5 minutes; but I do want to encourage General, Secretary Shinseki to actually sit down and listen to these options. We are not there to berate him or the VA but to simply say that our community is serious about finding solutions in working with the VA, and Mr. Fortenberry has now inserted language that would encourage that.

Offered by: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 7: Page 54, after line 12, insert the

following:

Sec. 224. None of the funds made available in this Act for

``Department of Veterans Affairs--Departmental

Administration--General Administration'' for administrative

expenses of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may be

obligated or expended until the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

meets with the Nebraska delegation to discuss alternative

options for the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital

planned for construction in Omaha, Nebraska.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this budget because I believe it is the necessary fiscal path to secure our children's future. I hear from my constituents every time I go back home. We can't keep borrowing nearly 40 cents on every dollar we spend.

This budget is a commonsense blueprint that grows our economy. It will force Washington to live within its means by cutting $5.1 trillion over 10 years to balance the budget. Under this plan, we will make much-needed reforms to the complicated and oversized Tax Code that will make Americans more competitive and create jobs. It will keep the promise to our seniors by strengthening Social Security and give our troops the tools they need to secure our country. This budget will provide relief from rising health care costs by repealing ObamaCare.

Families across my congressional district will be able to keep more of what they earn, which is exactly what we need to have happen to grow our economy. Right now, too many of them are struggling paycheck-to- paycheck under this Obama economy. Gas prices are still high and volatile. My constituents are paying higher health care premiums because of ObamaCare.

Families need a break, Mr. Chairman. This budget gives them a chance to get ahead while holding Washington accountable for its stewardship of your money.

Since we have a budget agreement, I am looking forward to seeing the Senate budget and when they will vote on it. I would encourage our friends on the other side of the aisle to keep Harry Reid's feet to the fire and make sure they do have a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Master Gunnery Sergeant Joel D. Rogers, who will retire this year from the United States' Marine Corps after 28 years of outstanding service to our country.

Upon completing recruit training, Private First Class Rogers attended Marine Corps Engineer School specializing in the Journeyman Electrical Equipment Repair Course. He completed training before being assigned to the Selected Marine Corps Reserve at Engineer Maintenance Company in Omaha, NE.

In January 2003, Master Sergeant Rogers deployed to Iraq serving as the Maintenance Chief of Combat Service Support Company-146 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Following his tour overseas, Master Sergeant Rogers was assigned to the Pentagon serving a vital role as a Congressional Liaison to the Marine Corps in Washington, D.C.

After serving at the Pentagon, Master Gunnery Sergeant Rogers returned to Omaha and Offutt Air Force Base as a Protocol Action Officer before later serving as a Legislative Liaison for U.S. Strategic Command. As a member of the legislative staff, Sergeant Rogers served a crucial role interacting directly with members of Congress.

As a civilian, Rogers finished 24 years with the State of Nebraska's Department of Health and Human Services before retiring in 2012 as an Administrator. He is an alumnus of Bellevue University where he holds a Bachelor's degree in Human Services Administration and a Master's in Organizational Leadership.

In November 2012, Master Gunnery Sergeant Rogers assumed his current role as Action Officer of Command Protocol. In this role, he coordinates and assists in visits for the command's various distinguished visitors including members of Congress, military and civilian leaders, as well as foreign government officials.

Rogers and his wife Felicia, who serves as my District Director, have seven children and live in Papillion, NE. Three of their sons have followed their dad's lead in serving our country by also enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps. Rogers and his family are outstanding members of our community and this past November received the Community Service Award from Heartland Family Service, an award given to those exemplifying strong family life and community service in the Omaha area.

Master Gunnery Sergeant Rogers is the recipient of various personal decorations including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Services Commendation Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Master Gunnery Sergeant Rogers for his outstanding service to our country and in particular, Offut Air Force Base and STRATCOM.

Mr. Speaker, we have just gone through an hour of talking about uninsured, and I want to talk an hour about creating jobs and that it is time to build the Keystone pipeline.

The Keystone pipeline has just reached its 2,001st day of the birth of its permit, 2,001 days that this country has waited for our President to sign the permit allowing the construction of the Keystone pipeline.

Why is the Keystone pipeline important to us? First of all, the Keystone pipeline brings oil from Canada into the United States to six of our refineries. This provides us a level of energy security that is absolutely necessary in today's world. In fact, when I talk about today's world, let's talk about current events for just 1 second here.

This is a newspaper article that was just released a few hours ago:

Retired General James Jones told the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee on Thursday that approving the pipeline

would send a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin and

other ``international bullies'' that they cannot use energy

security as a weapon.

Jones said rejection of the Canada-to-Texas pipeline would

``make Mr. Putin's day and strengthen his hand.''

The Senate panel was holding its first hearing on the

pipeline 5 years after it was proposed as Democrats wrestle

with its impact on the outcome of next fall's election.

The reality is, in a geopolitical sense, Russia is using energy as a new economic weapon to control the countries that it once dominated as the Soviet Union. We have a new energy--well, it is a renaissance. Because of new technologies and new abilities, we are finding oil and natural gas within our own borders; but if we can team up with Canada's oil in a North American oil pact, the reality is we will no longer be relying on Venezuela. In fact, the amount that comes through the pipeline, the proposed Keystone pipeline, would completely offset Venezuelan oil. It doesn't matter what your party registration is; I think all of us would agree that if we didn't have to rely on Venezuelan oil, that makes us a more secure country.

Now, I want to talk about some of the other advantages besides just geopolitical. The first is 42,000 jobs. Now, I know a lot of the opponents to this pipeline say that it is a myth that it creates 42,000 jobs, but the reality is that when you add the direct jobs--for example, the hundreds if not 1,000 people from Nebraska that would go to work on the pipeline as it comes through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas--but what it also employs are all that we would call downstream, the downstream that would work on the refineries to upgrade them to be able to handle the additional oil and the oil that would come to them, and those refineries are in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

But then we can look about, okay, what are all the other indirect jobs? For example, Mr. Griffin is going to talk about and mention a company in his district in Arkansas that actually fabricates, takes the steel that is hopefully made in America and fabricates it into the pipeline. So there are thousands of indirect jobs that rely on the construction.

Now, when I am out and about, I hear all these myths that have been perpetuated on the Keystone pipeline, and I just want to bat a few of them down tonight.

First of all, some of the environmental extremists that are opposing the Keystone pipeline tell people that it will increase CO2, or carbon, in our air. The reality is the environmental studies and the final study concluded that not only does it not increase carbon, but because it will transfer transportation of the oil from train and trucks to a zero-emission pipeline, it will actually reduce carbon output; because the reality is the carbon output to extract the oil from the oil sands is diminishing, and the reality is that oil, as it is pumped out or created there, will be used. So if you stop the Keystone pipeline, the reality is there will be more carbon emitted.

In a recent meeting with the Canadian officials, they stressed to me that they are going ahead with their pipelines reversing the flow so that they can pump oil from the oil sands to the east coast of Canada and then will export it. Then they also have already accumulated all of the right-of-way necessary for a pipeline to the west and will build a second one to the west.

What that means is that, okay, they used the pipeline, but now it goes on a ship and is sent to China, so we lose the opportunities except for what can be brought by train and truck into the United States and makes us less secure.

Now, those are environmental studies that have done this. This is science. This is from reputable engineering firms in one of our national laboratories.

One of the other myths is that this pipeline won't be safe, that there have been leaks in the first Keystone pipeline that is already carrying some of the oil over. The reality is there were leaks in the first Keystone pipeline. They were defective seals that have been replaced, and the leaks have stopped.

Now, this pipeline has been studied safetywise more than any others. The liquid pipeline industry's safety performance initiative reflects these conclusions: first of all, that pipeline safety statistics deliver 99.999 percent of crude oil and petroleum products each year safely; 14 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products delivered in the pipeline in 2012; 62 percent decline in the number of pipeline releases since 2001; and 47 percent decline in the number of barrels released since 2001.

The reality is not only are pipelines becoming safer, but the pipeline, this Keystone pipeline has 59 special conditions placed upon it above all other pipelines. Most of these are to mitigate any risk of spilling or of a leak. If there is a leak, one of the other conditions is that they have to have people within a 2-hour drive to be able to stop that leak, thereby minimizing that leak.

Now, there is another myth about it hurting the Ogallala aquifer. They said that hasn't been studied, but the reality is that 22,000 pages of environmental studies that have been submitted to the State Department and made final clearly state that it has a minimal impact on the Ogallala aquifer. And when you read into the facts of the Ogallala--I learned something, growing up in Nebraska. We assumed that it was a big underground lake. What it is, it is a series of rock formations that capture water. So when you have a heavy crude, if it would leak, it is easier to pick up than a lighter crude or a gas. And because it is a rocky formation, it would trap it and not allow it to leak where they could get down there to where the leak was and be able to pump it out without further injuring the Ogallala aquifer. So the fact that it can pollute this huge underground lake that doesn't really exist all of the way down to Kansas is a myth, if you talk to the real geologists and the environmental folks, experts, in this area.

Now, does the Keystone pipeline have an economic impact? Yes. It will have $2 billion worth of earnings throughout the U.S., property tax revenue, through the property taxes paid along the pipeline to the communities that will help schools and counties with their budgets.

Now, one other thing that I hear once in a while is that Canadian oil sands are more dangerous or dirtier than other oils. The fact is that the U.S. currently imports 1.4 million barrels of this crude daily. Nearly all of it is transported by already existing pipelines or trucks or trains, and there has

not been a single recorded pipeline rupture caused by the oil sands. That is one of the other things--because of the chemical that they use to help it slide down the pipeline and be pumped, that somehow that weakens the pipeline, but that is just not true.

Then I hear, and this is another one that is famous: the Keystone XL pipeline is going to increase gas prices. Well, first of all if you know economics, if you know oil economics, you go: Huh? How can that be? It just defies logic and defies common sense. The reality is that in a memo by the Department of Energy regarding Keystone XL, it asserted that the gasoline prices in all markets served, and this is the Department of Energy saying it, the Obama administration Department of Energy saying this, they asserted that gasoline prices in all markets served by refineries on the east coast and the gulf would decrease, including in the Midwest. The discount from WTI crude does not and has not translated into lower gasoline prices in the Midwest. This is because the Midwest must import gasoline from outside of the region, forcing buyers to pay global market prices. Bringing new pipeline capacity online would allow WTI to reconnect with other benchmark prices while simultaneously helping to drive down the price of oil and gasoline.

This dovetails into my last myth, and that is all of this oil is just going to be exported anyway, so why risk any environmental issues in the United States if all it is going to be is put on ships and exported.

That is just pure bull. That is an emotional argument that has no basis in truth. There are six refineries that are contracting for this oil to refine it into gasoline and other products. The United States uses gasoline. The gasoline that is refined from this product and those six refineries is going to stay in the United States.

Can you say that 100 percent of every barrel is not going to be exported? No, because there are a variety of products made from a barrel of oil, including lubricants that are not even used in the United States but are used in other places. Those will be exported. Some of the diesel will be exported. But the reality is that the gasoline that we care about stays in the United States. It is just a fact that it will stay here. It just baffles me that people say that it is all going to be exported and it is going to raise gas prices, and none of it is true.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

I think if there is someone watching C-SPAN and they watched the first hour, the Democratic hour, and now they are watching us, they are seeing how they advocated for unemployment insurance, and we are advocating for jobs. It is quite a stark difference in our philosophies showing on the House floor tonight.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.

At this time, I want to yield to our friend from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Thank you. It was about a year ago this time that H.R. 3, one of our leadership bills, came through our Energy and Commerce Committee that would have permitted the Keystone pipeline passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in this Chamber.

It has been sitting on Senator Reid's desk for over a year now-- 42,000 jobs that could be created collecting dust.

I yield to our friend from Virginia, Mr. Morgan Griffith. If you would give us your thoughts on the Keystone pipeline?

We in the House have passed about 430 bills. 89 of them actually gotten out of the Senate. Well over about 100, I guess--maybe even more than 100--actually are like the Keystone pipeline, that would create--immediately create jobs, but yet they are sitting on a desk.

I am baffled, too, so I appreciate your comments.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to sum up here:

2,001 days since the permit for this pipeline was filed and over 22,000 pages of scientific review. This permit has been sitting around longer than it took the United States to win World War II. This permit has been here longer than it took Lewis and Clark to explore the Louisiana Purchase and come back. Eleven Federal agencies have participated in reviewing the Keystone pipeline--11 Federal agencies on top of the scientific studies. Every State in which the proposed Keystone pipeline route goes through has approved the pipeline and has independently reviewed it.

Six weeks ago, the President, right behind my right shoulder here, said that he would take out his phone and his pen and would act.

Mr. President, tonight, we ask you to pick up your phone. Call Prime Minister Harper and tell him, Yes, I am ready to sign the permit. Then take out your permit, sign it, and let's get 42,000 people back to work.

I have got an extra one, and I will let him keep it.

I would even let him keep it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

I want to congratulate all the conferees on getting to this point.

Even though the bill is not perfect, it is needed.

I am confident that this legislation will serve Nebraska farmers well.

My main concern with the bill was making meaningful reforms to SNAP so that it serves those who really need it without the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse that currently plagues the system.

I am pleased that the conferees included the establishment of a 10- state pilot program to empower states to engage able-bodied adults in mandatory work programs.

This is a commonsense reform and it's my hope my home state of Nebraska choses to participate in this pilot.

This farm bill is a step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7--the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Our Founding Fathers, when writing the Declaration of Independence, listed three rights that this Congress has an obligation to protect, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe strongly that life begins at conception and thus it's our obligation to protect the right to life, especially for the most defenseless.

It's unconscionable to me that some would even consider using Federal dollars to perform these heinous acts against the unborn. Unfortunately, there are some who would like this practice to continue even though a majority of Americans don't believe that taxpayer funds should be used to abort a baby.

The bill that we're debating today prohibits taxpayer-funded abortions but leaves exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. This legislation also holds the President's health care law to the same standard by making sure those receiving assistance to participate in the newly formed health care exchanges aren't able to receive abortion on demand.

Like many parents, I will never forget when I first heard my child's heart beat. It was a sign of a healthy, living child of God. It was a defining moment for me as a father knowing that my wife and I were bringing and responsible for another human being.

I strongly urge the House to pass this bill because we cannot and shouldn't accept abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, to clarify one thing, we did have a legislative hearing on this bill with robust debate on it in that committee hearing. Evidently, you didn't get the notice of that hearing.

No, I only have 3 minutes. If I have extra time, I will.

Today we are taking what should be an easy vote and, frankly, a bipartisan vote.

My legislation, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, does nothing more than ask the administration to provide Congress, Governors, State insurance commissioners, and the American people with information.

By the way, the information that is outlined in this bill to be provided or accessible on a weekly basis is simply what most States already require to be done by health insurance companies within their States. This is a request by State insurance commissioners, especially ours from Nebraska that are very frustrated with the lack of information that they are receiving about who is signing up for what plans in the State of Nebraska.

This should be easy. What we are talking about here today is basic transparency so we all have the data to assess what is working and what is not. This bill is a mechanism for accountability so we can get the answers that both Democrats and Republicans and State insurance commissioners and Governors need to know in order to understand what is working and what is not.

We are asking for information that an entity overseeing a health insurance operation should have at the tip of their fingers at all times.

Our metrics are not complex. We are simply asking for: How many people have enrolled? How many of these people have paid their first month's premiums, which means they are actually insured, that they have been effectuated? What plans did they pick? What ZIP Codes are they from so we know if people from Nebraska or Iowa or Kansas have signed up? Were they already eligible for Medicare or are these new enrollees from the expansion? These are critical issues in determining the safety and soundness of the policies being issued, and is, again, information that State insurance commissioners usually receive.

This administration and some on the other side say that this information that we are requesting is extraneous and costly and burdensome, but yet this data is already being obtained; it is already on a realtime basis being calculated. It is just the issue of when and in what form this is released to the public. As to cost, here is the CBO score--zero--not the millions that we are being told by our friends on the other side of the aisle and the White House. This is necessary, usual course of business data.

We do add another part in here and another frustration from our State insurance commissioners, which is that they don't know who is selling the insurance. They would like to have the names of the people who are the navigators out there. Grants go to organizations, but we don't know who is actually sitting down and selling policies or helping them through the exchange. That is, again, basic information that is the normal course of business in the insurance world. We are just asking that they provide the same information that the State law would require of an insurance company that has had a salesman who is out signing people up.

So that is the totality of this bill, and you have to ask the question: If they are fighting so hard, what are they trying to hide?

Madam Speaker, I rise today because I believe that Americans deserve better than an omnibus bill.

I believe the American people deserve a full and transparent process that occurs through regular order.

Omnibus bills, like the one we're voting on today are exactly why people have lost their trust in Washington.

Yes, supporting this omnibus is better than operating by continuing resolution but we cannot continue to govern like this.

I can't support a bill that spends trillions of taxpayer dollars with no way to offer amendments.

And it's unfortunate, because there are several items in this bill that I would enthusiastically vote in favor if they came to this floor for stand-alone votes.

Extremely important to me is the exemption for disabled veterans and survivors from the 1 percent COLA reduction.

This bill exempts ``medically retired'' personnel.

These retirees are retiring for reasons other than typical retirement. Retiring for medical reasons is allowed if the VA gives you a 30% or higher ``disability rating.''

Also included in this bill is a provision that requires the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to inform his or her staff when using emergency power.

I have a bill that is currently moving through the Energy and Commerce Committee that deals with this very specific issue as well as other operations at the NRC.

Included in this bill is language lifting the 902 limit for WRDA projects--which would benefit a levy project in Sarpy County.

This bill also reduces the Prevention and Public Health (PPH) fund by $1 billion.

This is essentially a slush fund created in the President's health care law that has no oversight from Congress that the Secretary of Health and Human services could use--completely unchecked to implement the Affordable Care Act.

And this bill reduces IPAB funding by $10 billion.

IPAB plain and simple shouldn't exist because Congress should shape Medicare policies, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

I also support the Hyde Amendment, which is included, and because I believe that we should continue to be the voice of the unborn.

These are all issues where I have strongly supported. On some of these issues, I've written legislation.

But, as we try to regain regular order in our budgeting process--we shouldn't be legislating through appropriations bills--which this omnibus does.

Furthermore, as I read the details, there is still too much wasteful spending and with no way to amend this legislation--I cannot in good conscious support this bill.

This omnibus bill is an extremely poor way to govern.

My hope is that with the budget agreement Congress passed last month, we can return to regular order.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me, and I thank the gentleman from New York, my good friend. We have worked on several bills together, but the poison control bill is certainly one of those that we've been active on several years now. Thank you for your involvement and your staff's involvement. They have done a great job.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan and a bicameral bill. Not only were we in negotiations and just working together in a bipartisan way in the House, but our team in the House, Eliot Engel and myself, have been working with the Senate, and they have an identical bill to this.

This bill reauthorizes the national Poison Control Centers' toll-free number, the Poison Centers' nationwide media campaign, and the grant program which provides funds for over 50 poison centers nationwide, including the one in Omaha, Nebraska, that I recently visited.

Currently, 56 poison centers serve all 50 States and its territories 24 hours a day, 7 days a week--yes, even Christmas. These centers provide professional advice from doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and toxicology specialists to people calling in with questions or concerns regarding potential exposure to harmful toxins.

Nebraska's poison control center has a direct relationship with our medical center, and you will find that very common in many communities and States.

In 2010 alone, the annual report of the poison control centers reported over 3 million calls received and served by the centers. In 2012, more than 3.9 million calls were managed by our Nation's poison control centers.

Our national poison center network also serves as an ideal example of private-public partnership that saves the Federal Government money-- billions of dollars each year--in avoided emergency room expenses while delivering access to critical services. Eighty percent of the poison centers' operating budget comes from non-Federal sources. In 2012, an independent analysis found a large portion of the savings provided by poison centers saved SCHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid funds more than $700 million a year just for those programs. America's utilization of the Nation's poison control center information and case triage services results in avoiding more than 1.7 million unnecessary visits to health care facilities.

Now I am encouraging every Member of Congress to visit their State's poison center where they will see great professionals work with frightened people on the other side of that call in a remarkable way. And I also encourage them to support this bill.