Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Susan Feistner. Susie recently retired from my congressional staff after 13 years of dedicated and excellent service to the constituents of the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. I wish Susie all the happiness in the world she embarks on the next stage of her life.

Susie served as my Senior Constituent Liaison in my Omaha Congressional Office. Susie handles immigration issues, and this was no small task. Over the years, she muddled through mounds of paperwork to find solutions for people and in many cases reunited families, helped with adoptions of foreign-born children and obtained last-minute visas and passports. She also referred people to attorneys for help in becoming legal citizens and helped many constituents navigate through the tangle of U.S. Immigration laws. Her tireless service made a difference in thousands of lives.

Over the years, Susie has also been active in Republican Party politics and has worked for candidates up and down and the ballot. Her involvement in our political process to spread the Republican message of lower taxes and a strong national defense has been greatly appreciated. She has also been a steadying hand in my District Office and the constituents of Nebraska's Second Congressional District have benefitted greatly.

I offer you a heartfelt thank you to Susie for her dedication. I am extremely proud of her contributions over the past 13 years and I am blessed to have had such a professional and hard working individual on my team.

It is a privilege and an honor to have Susie as a part of Team Terry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dean Mathisen for 10 years of service to Nebraska's Second District. Dean is a tireless and devoted public servant to the Second Congressional District of Nebraska and specifically to the veterans in the metro area.

Dean Mathisen serves as a Senior Constituent Liaison in my Omaha Congressional Office and handles military and veteran's affairs. As a former US Army officer and combat veteran of the Cold and First Gulf Wars, his personal experiences aid him in understanding and helping those now serving and returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dean is equally committed to assisting the other ``Band of Brothers'' from our Nation's other wars. Over these past 10 years, his efforts found solutions and answers to complex requests for help with ``government bureaucracy'' by service members, veterans and family members. His counsel has been instrumental in helping me identify the need for and communicate with the Department of Veterans Affairs about bringing a National Veterans Cemetery to the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. Thanks to Dean's efforts, this project is now a reality and will soon break ground providing a final resting place for the 112,000 underserved veterans in the Omaha area that is worthy of the sacrifices they made.

Dean and I first met as members of the Omaha Young Republicans. He also served on the Douglas County Republican Central Committee as a tireless advocate for the Republican Party's message of lower taxes and a strong national defense. In his free time, he has stayed engaged within the veterans' community by being an active member of the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. He also assists the metro area Boy Scouts with review of rank advancements and other scouting activities.

I offer Dean my sincere appreciation for his dedication and years of service to both our country and to Nebraska's Second Congressional District. I am extremely proud of his accomplishments and am thankful for his years of counsel. Omaha's veterans are better off because of Dean's service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dream It. Do It., Nebraska's new partnership with my alma mater, Omaha Northwest High School.

The Dream It. Do It. Initiative partners manufacturers with local schools and community organizations to promote manufacturing and educate students on careers in an industry that supports one in six jobs in the United States. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the manufacturing industry employs nearly 10 percent of the workforce in Nebraska with annual average salaries of $53,831. That's $14,000 higher than other non-farm payrolls in my State. In addition to educating students on benefits of careers in manufacturing, Dream It. Do It. Nebraska helps students and their families understand the education paths necessary to obtain these jobs.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I have heard repeatedly from over 40 witnesses in our Nation of Builders hearings that there are a lot of manufacturing jobs available. I've heard this from some manufacturers in Omaha. The problem is that employers are finding there isn't a pool of potential employees with the necessary skills for these positions. Dream It. Do It. Nebraska makes sure that tomorrow's workers in my district have the education and skills required to fill these great, middle-class jobs. I am pleased that Dream It. Do It. Nebraska is working in my district to help prepare young people for these jobs.

With twenty-five programs nationwide, Dream It. Do It. is truly a grassroots program. Its grassroots nature allows local leaders to design programs to address the specific needs in their communities. Dream It. Do It. Nebraska is able to prepare Nebraska students for Nebraska jobs.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Dream It. Do It. Nebraska and Omaha Northwest High School on their new partnership. I know that my Northwest Huskies and Dream It. Do It. Nebraska's partnership will benefit Nebraskans for years to come.

Mr. Chair, I rise today tell my colleagues this amendment is very simple. It prohibits the Department of Defense (DOD) from spending any appropriated funds in fiscal year 2014 to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) states in its entirety:

No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for

procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a

fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any

mobility-related use, other than for research or testing,

unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse

gas emissions associated with the production and combustion

of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing

basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the

equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional

petroleum sources.

This provision, which prevents the federal government from purchasing alternative and potentially cheaper fuels such as liquid coal, could preclude the U.S. military from using crude oil derived from Canadian oil sands.

This section doesn't make sense when over 650,000 civilians are facing furloughs--including the 4,400 employees, who serve Offutt Air Force Base, in just outside of my district. They shouldn't be used as political footballs when we're spending our limited resources on programs in Section 526.

Section 526 restricts fuel choices. It is vague, ambiguous, and doesn't improve reliability of energy supplies, nor does it help our national security goals. Not to mention, expensive.

At a time when our nation is worried about its fiscal health, we should be advancing more initiatives giving our military real flexibility in fuel choice, rather than having the Department of Defense to commit millions of taxpayers' dollars on more costly, less efficient options.

Section 526 goes against the intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which declared that oil sands and other unconventional fuels are strategically important resources and directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a strategy to use these fuels to reduce the reliance of oil from unstable regions of the world.

The Department of Defense is the government's largest consumer of fuel.

If we do not limit the use of Section 526, it could increase fuel costs for our military and

severely restrict the Pentagon's ability to get energy that originates from our strongest ally and number one trading partner, Canada.

Programs like Section 526 mandate that the Armed Services spend entirely too much money on fuels. If we didn't spend so much money on these fuels, we would be able to reduce the effects of the politically motivated furloughs and give DOD the resources it needs to responsibly implement sequestration.

It is imperative to ensure that our nation, in particular the military, is not inhibited from using cheaper and more abundant fuels produced with oil from our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, which will reduce our reliance on imports from hostile areas of the world.

True national security rests when we can make sure our DOD civilian employees are on the job by using a secure, diverse fuel supply for our armed forces.

Madam Chair, I withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 24.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to represent Omaha and its surrounding areas. It has a magnificent base with extremely important missions. What that means is that I represent not only uniformed members who serve there, but civilian workers who work on that base also.

Mr. Chairman, I can't go out in public without somebody coming up to me and saying, I'm one of the furloughed workers. I can't afford to lose those days. What are you going to do?

Well, I think that's a legitimate ask of that person. Frankly, I can't go to a sporting event. Even in my own neighborhood there are people asking me what we're going to do to help them.

Now, the answer here in this body has been, mostly, if the DOD really wanted to make their pay whole and not give them furlough dates, they could do that. This is a political move by the President. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not willing to play that level of politics with my constituents' pay.

So what this amendment does is moves $2.6 billion out of the Afghan Security Forces account. It reduces that account from $7.7 billion to $5.1 billion, moving it to an account that can be used to supplement those wages and eliminate the furloughs of 55,000 civilian workers working on our bases across the country.

Does this cure every furlough? No. But it does the vast majority, and it gives flexibility to the DOD to perhaps reduce the furloughs to the point where it is a negligible impact on 100 percent.

Let's talk about this fund, because there seems to be some confusion about the fund.

The Afghan Security Forces account is the fund of which the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, has uncovered $2 billion, Mr. Chairman, of waste, fraud, and abuse. This is that fund that has been in the paper a lot lately for building bases that nobody wanted and nobody is using. This is the fund that bought Russian helicopters for the Afghan military that no one knows how to fly and they're sitting there rusting. This is basically a type of slush fund to be used for special projects that accusations have been made are simply lining the pockets of some Afghan officials.

So all we're doing is reducing the amount of proven fraud within this fund. The reality here is we reduce the fund and we save our own civilian employees that go to work every day but now have been told to stay home for a certain amount of days. We can protect those workers. Let's focus on U.S. workers, those working on our bases. Let's make them the priority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, the issue before us is will you vote ``yes'' for our civilian employees working on the base or will you vote ``no,'' which says I support the waste, fraud, and abuse in this fund.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise because of 650,000 people in my district; 4,400 employees who serve at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska are being used as political footballs.

Programs like the section 526 that we just heard the gentleman from Louisiana discuss mandate that the armed services spend entirely too much money on fuels. Section 526 also bans our military from using other traditional energy sources like oil sands from Alberta, or even coal-to-liquids.

So, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support, though, for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), who has done this amendment in the past. To me, it's not about who gets the credit or who reaps the rewards, just that it gets done.

I'm tired of the Pentagon using civilian workers on base as a political football and then spends the money that they do on fuels. So by working together to cut waste from this bill, like

section 526, we can find ways to protect our constituents who have devoted their lives to serving the men and women who wear the uniform.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Wittman

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the American-Italian Heritage Society on the occasion of breaking ground on their new headquarters.

The American-Italian Heritage Society was founded in Omaha in 1980 by seven individuals in order to preserve their Italian heritage in the community. Since its founding, the organization has been dedicated to encouraging awareness of Italian traditions, including history, culture, and language, among many other aspects.

This new building serving as their headquarters will provide a permanent meeting center for members of the American-Italian Heritage Society to gather. Here they will be able to host their traditional Italian courses and many other activities for both children and adults. The society also hosts many events for members and guests, such as, the annual La Festa Italiana, which has been held for nearly thirty years. Additionally, many fundraisers have been held such as the American- Italian Heritage Society pasta dinners, which allow members of the Omaha area to embrace Italian culture.

The American-Italian Heritage Society has grown significantly since it's founding with now over 1,000 members. It hopes to continue to grow by adding a cultural museum and library to preserve Italian culture in Omaha.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating The American-Italian Heritage Society on their new building. The Omaha community and I recognize all of the advances the American-Italian Heritage Society has made to not only celebrate Italian culture and tradition but to educate the future generations as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Omaha Star on the occasion of their 75th Anniversary.

The Omaha Star was founded by the late Mildred D. Brown on July 9th, 1938. Brown was believed to be the first female, certainly the first African-American woman, to have founded a newspaper. Later the paper was placed in the hands of Brown's niece, Dr. Marguerita Washington, who now heads the newspaper.

Since 1938, the policy The Omaha Star has been to print only positive news and to be a vigilant champion for African-American progress. The circulation of The Omaha Star is 30,000 and its archives are a miniature history of Omaha's black community. Its work for equal rights for all Americans are legendary.

Two significant accomplishments of The Omaha Star are leading the charge to open public accommodations to African-Americans and working with the public school system of Omaha to ensure that black teachers have equal participation. Over the years, The Omaha Star has received many awards and was inducted into the Chamber of Commerce Business Hall of Fame on July gth, 1996.

Currently, The Omaha Star concentrates of news coverage that is relevant to the particular market that they have continued to serve proudly for decades. It has been Nebraska's largest African-American newspaper and the Omaha's most effective publican highlighting ways to improve the lives of African-Americans. The Omaha Star has stood the test of time and continues to provide relevant information, education and positive motivation to Omaha's citizens.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating The Omaha Star on their 75th Anniversary. I know that Omahans join me in hoping The Omaha Star continues providing positive information to the African-American community for many years to come.

Well, I thank you, my friend from Arkansas.

It's too bad that the E in EPA now means ``espionage'' because the EPA rents airplanes and videotapes from the air farmers and ranchers and feedlots in their daily activities without any reason to think that they're violating any rule or regulation.

So not only are they spying, but what is most concerning to those that have been videotaped by the EPA is that the EPA released the documents. We don't know how the environmental and animal rights groups found out that they were doing this because the farmers didn't know it was going on.

But through a FOIA request, the EPA turned over all of the documents about the farmers, ranchers and food lot owners, with their personal identifiable information, their names and their addresses. And this has to stop.

The people that have been victims of this videotaping and giving this information are really concerned; and so I thank the gentleman for his good amendment here, and allowing me to join, because this protects their privacy rights in the future.

It doesn't stop them from spying yet. That will be done in a different bill. But this at least protects their privacy, and I really appreciate it.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Terry amendment requests that none of the funds made available by this act, including the funds made available for the Construction and Major Projects account, be used to increase funding for any major medical facility project that is under construction as of the date of enactment of this act.

A major medical facility project, as defined by section 8104 of Title 38 in the U.S. Code, is a project that involves a total expenditure of more than $10 million. This includes the cost overruns of new VA hospitals.

Take the new VA Hospital in New Orleans that was originally supposed to cost $625 million, but a new GAO report shows that the cost overruns at this particular facility is $370 million, pushing that to a near- billion-dollar hospital.

The Navy Times recently reported about a GAO report that clearly illustrates this problem and should greatly disturb everyone. The Government Accountability Office found that the VA Hospital construction projects in Denver, Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Orlando are, on average, experiencing delays of 35 months and cost overruns of around $366 million. This comes out to about, with the expected costs and the overruns, almost a billion dollars per hospital.

My amendment is designed to stop these cost overruns. In the Omaha metropolitan area, eastern Nebraska and western Iowa, there's about 112,000 underserved veterans in Omaha that are all too familiar with the cost overruns and delays associated with the building of VA hospitals.

We have an almost 70-year-old facility in Omaha that is in dire need of replacement. The infrastructure's decrepit; it's rusting away. The HVAC system is so poor that we can't use many of the rooms. And then on top of that, our seven operating rooms have been shut down recently.

Unfortunately, there's no telling when the VA is going to get to it. The veterans in Omaha are being told that there's no money left.

This isn't just Omaha; this is occurring in California, Texas, and all over the world. This is unfair to the seniors to have this level of cost overruns and mismanagement.

So that's the purpose and reason behind this amendment, to start making them focus on the bidding process, do it right, and not simply just have a bid and then make all the additions and changes afterwards that drive up the costs. And so I urge support for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered by: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Sec. 419. None of the funds made available by this Act,

including the funds made available for ``Construction, Major

Projects'', may be used to increase the funding for any major

medical facility project (as defined in subsection (a)(3)(A)

of section 8104 of title 38, United States Code), which is

under construction as of the date of the enactment of this

Act, above the amount specified in the prospectus described

in subsection (b) of such section 8104 and the detailed

estimate of cost described in paragraph (1) of such

subsection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

Let's be honest: this permit is 5 years old. The average time for authorizing permits in these types of projects is 18 to 24 months. Enough paralysis by analysis.

Now, some may say during this discussion that we're being impatient and we're rushing this through--1,700 days? This delay has taken longer than it took the Greatest Generation to win World War II on both fronts. It's longer than it took Lewis and Clark to do their exploration of the Louisiana Purchase to Oregon and back.

The Keystone XL is a private infrastructure project with no government funds that will create nongovernment jobs--by the way, a $7 billion infrastructure project, 20,000 direct jobs along this route over a 2-year period.

I want to make a very important point. Those who oppose this legislation argue that it's unprecedented. This is not the first time Congress has had to intervene to build a pipeline. Like-minded legislation to this one was necessary 40 years ago to achieve construction of the game-changing trans-Alaska pipeline. That legislation that was passed and signed into law deemed that the environmental studies--NEPA--were sufficient, as this one does; that rights of way across Federal lands--not State, but Federal lands--were processed; and judicial review was also included.

Then again, in 2004, Congress had to act to pass legislation to build the Alaska natural gas pipeline. That legislation was passed and signed into law with a 60-day judicial review. The pipeline was deemed to be in the national interest and, unlike today, it expedited the NEPA. Here, the NEPA process has been finished--complete. The only way you can get more studies is to have amendments requiring more studies because all of the legal requirements have been filled.

Today, we just heard about mistreatment. And there was some misinformation from the last speaker regarding what this bill does. It gives a streamlined judicial process in regard to the Federal permits issued. It has nothing to do with States' eminent domain. But let's hear some facts.

Today, TransCanada has agreements with 60,000 landowners over 32,000 miles of pipeline. Under the original Keystone pipeline that goes through Nebraska, there were over 300 landowners involved in negotiations, four of whom objected. Three of those settled, one went to court; 300 versus four that were upset. And they got their day in court in the State of Nebraska, just like this bill preserves. If there are verifiable crop deficiencies, it's TransCanada's policy to make them whole.

Now, what will compel the State Department to complete this process? They've had it for 5 years. The studies have been completed--the original NEPA, a supplemental, a Nebraska supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most studied pipeline in the history of mankind.

History is our greatest educator.

In 1973, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act to ``ensure that because of the extensive governmental studies already made of this project and the national interest in early delivery of North Slope oil to domestic markets, the trans-Alaska pipeline be constructed promptly without further administrative or judicial delay or impediment.''

That was 40 years ago we had the same problems; 2004 we have the same problems. And it took Congress to act to resolve them.

This will be the newest, most highly engineered pipeline in our history to resolve some of the questions from the gentleman from Colorado. Again, three separate environmental studies.

The point of those is to study the impacts, if there is a spill, to not only the soil, the ecosystem, but the Ogallala Aquifer as well. Three different studies have dealt with that. All have scientifically concluded that there is negligible impact on the ecosystem, or in the artistic term ``not significant.''

The most celebrated geologist in the State of Nebraska has said that it is impossible for the oil to get to the Ogallala Aquifer; but if it did, the water is still and won't move out of that and can be easily remedied.

Now, I'm not being impatient; the Republicans aren't being impatient. Our Nation of builders needs this pipeline, and I urge approval of both the rule and the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support.

Let me quote the President from his speech last week: ``Today, I'm directing agencies across the government to do what it takes to cut timelines for breaking ground on major infrastructure projects in half. And what that will mean is construction workers will get back on the jobs faster. It means more money going back into local economies. And it means more demand for outstanding dredging,'' the particular business that he was visiting that day.

The President's right. But look at the Keystone project that he has purposely denied at one time, and now is delaying ad infinitum.

So the nearly 1,705 days is more than double the time that the traditional transborder pipelines have taken. What this is is a $7 billion privately funded infrastructure project that puts, immediately, 20,000 workers, 2,000 of which come from my State of Nebraska, downstream. With the new expansion of refineries, that could go up to 118,000.

You have to ask, when there's been two other times in history, two of them both supported by the Democrats, sponsored by the Democrats, that were doing the same thing that this bill is, this isn't breaking new ground. These were the Alaska natural gas pipeline and the transatlantic pipeline. Both are doing the same things that are here.

So you have to ask the question, why, Mr. Chairman, has it taken 5 years to get to the point where all of the studies are done and completed, but yet they're still finding ways to delay?

We know what it is. The agenda has been taken over by the left-wing extremists. The NRDC and the extreme environmental groups are dictating the delay here in the hopes of killing it. They have stated that their hope is to kill. That's their number one issue, to kill this pipeline, and then they're going to go after other things after this is done.

So that's what the real agenda is here. So let's stop saying that this is just an extraordinary piece of legislation. This is modeled on past pieces of legislation where delays and bureaucratic morass has delayed them, and it's time, after almost 5 years, to get the Keystone pipeline working and the people working.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

There are two realities here. Number one is that on the process of obtaining the bitumen, the crude that comes and will be put into the pipeline, that process is becoming more efficient all the time and decreasing its carbon footprint. But what's produced is equal to a heavy crude. That's what the State Department, under the appropriate rules, stated or concluded, based on the environmental impact studies. It is, in essence, equal to what we're importing from Venezuela today. In essence, it's neutral. That's the State Department's own conclusions and analysis--that it would have no real impact on climate change. So the study has been completed and this amendment is not necessary. It's just another way to keep delaying.

I would request a ``no'' vote.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

We interpreted that requesting that information could be used as a tool to further delay it. That's how we've reached that conclusion. They've used so many things to delay this already that we're just suspicious that this would be another opportunity.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the study. It requires another additional study around the refineries. Keep in mind that the refineries have already been through extensive research and studies to obtain their permits. Yes, many of the refineries are expanding right now, also under the tutelage and permitting processes of the EPA.

They're already being studied. It's not necessary to then include it as a condition precedent to the construction of the Keystone pipeline, which is the essence of what this bill does.

The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that the two entities that are encouraging this amendment are the two entities that have been at the forefront of causing most of these delays, so it's no surprise to me that the Sierra Club and the NRDC are throwing another tool out there to continue these delays. That's the whole purpose.

After 1,700 days, almost 5 years, three major environmental studies on this pipeline, it's time to just get this done. Enough is enough.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that that was done for a different permit. The study that was done--that's referenced in there-- is the environmental study and the requested supplemental for the route, except for the State of Nebraska.

There's another sentence in there that he didn't mention and that is in the now second supplemental for the State of Nebraska new review. There was an earlier statement that there was never one done under Nebraska. That's just absolutely false.

The reality is we've done all of the environmental statements on this route for this permit that were required. So I want to make that clear.

And the other point that I would like to make is the language that's taken in this bill about deeming it in the national interest and deeming the environmental studies--as they've been done for this route in total--have been done before, including the language taken out of a bill that the gentleman that's speaking right now supported in 2004.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee bringing this amendment, and I appreciate all of the time and effort that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has put into this. I would agree that it's reasonable; the Governors should have this. In fact, TransCanada has agreed to a variety of additional measures that would be part of this, and the Governors should have that. I agree with the gentleman's conclusion.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and claim the time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

A couple of points just so we get the total picture here.

We consume, in America, about 18 million barrels of oil per day. That's what we consume domestically. We've reduced that from 20 a couple of years ago.

Now, currently, when we add or just focus on OPEC oil countries, we're importing, daily, about 4.3 million of that 18 million that we need from OPEC countries--Saudi Arabia, Venezuela--and so building this pipeline, about 800,000 barrels, is about enough to offset the heavy crude from Venezuela.

Even with this pipeline running at its maximum, we will still need to import from OPEC-level countries. So the reality is that the numbers will dictate that we have a long way to go before we're flush in oil where we could be energy independent, not dependent on OPEC. That's one of our goals here in this legislation, is to be free of OPEC oil; keep it in North America.

Now, he also mentioned, the gentleman from New Jersey, a good friend and classmate of mine, that a representative, high-level representative from TransCanada said no, we're not going to guarantee that it all won't be exported.

Well, let's put it in context. There are people who are extracting the oil out of the ground. They contract with TransCanada to transport that to the customer that will have control over it and refine it. So the common carrier in the middle has no control over the contract between the producer and the refiner. That's why he said no. They have no say-so over what the refiner does.

Now, the refiner, just basic common sense, is going to tell you that it economically is cheaper to refine the gasoline in Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma

and Kansas, and then send out the gasoline product. And that gasoline's going to stay here domestically, maybe a small percentage. I don't know. But the reality is, economics is going to tell you that.

But here's why this amendment has to be defeated, and this is why this is just kind of an absurd amendment because it says none of that oil that's put in a barrel could be exported. None of it. None of its byproducts either.

So if you took the oil and made it into a plastic container of whatever you're exporting, you can't do that, because it's plastic made from something that came through TransCanada.

The gentleman also mentioned diesel. Even at the highest level of our dependence on OPEC oil, because of our use of gasoline as our dominant source of transportation, as opposed to diesel, which is our symbiotic relationship with Europe, where they use diesel, not gasoline, we have exported that, so we can't even continue that level of relationship, that symbiotic relationship where they send us the gasoline they don't use and we send them the diesel. We can't do that.

And as in every barrel, there will be lubricants, there will be gels, there will be other industrial uses that are exported all the time that we couldn't do here.

But what the American consumer wants is the gasoline from that. And economics, marketplace pressures, are going to tell you it's just a lot cheaper to refine it here and then send it to their gas stations, and that's what the consumer wants. That's what's going to happen.

Even the State Department said that was a fallacy that the gasoline was going to be exported.

So this is one of those amendments that sounds populist and good. But when you think it through, it's just a measure to kill the pipeline.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Gomez on his last week as Director of Small Business Services at the Omaha Chamber of Commerce. After 36 years serving small business owners in Omaha, Larry will hang up his Chamber shoes on March 15th and replace them with golf shoes.

A graduate of Bishop-Ryan High School in 1966 and of the University of Nebraska-Omaha in 1971, Larry spent his days as captain of the baseball team. When he wasn't busy with baseball, he earned a speech and communication/business degree from UNO. Upon graduating, he took a job with the City of Omaha in 1972 as the Chief Relocation Officer where he spearheaded the relocation of 52 businesses from the Central Park Mall.

Since he joined the Omaha Chamber in 1976 he hasn't looked back. As Director of the Omaha Regional Minority Purchasing Council, he matched minority businesses with corporate buyers. In 1978, Larry was named Director of Small Business Council and Area Councils. Major milestones during his tenure with the Chamber include: Buy the Big O! Show, Omaha 25 Fastest Growing (now the Big O! Excellence Awards), Business on the Green, and the Area Council Golden Spike Awards. In the last five years, Larry has been an integral part of the membership team and member retention.

Larry has been a tremendously valuable resource for my office. Whether it was setting up a group of business leaders to discuss cyber technology or the hurdles facing owners, Larry was always the first call.

I am going to miss seeing him at the many ribbon cuttings we've attended together through the years. What I do look forward to, however, is seeing if he puts his band--Larry Gomez and the Brotherhood--back together again.

So I rise today to thank him for his years of service and for his efforts to strengthen our city. May his drives be straight and his putts be few. I speak for all Omahans when I say we'll miss him and the energy he brought to the Chamber.