Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 7: Page 37, line 15, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Georgia's motion to instruct conferees to support the Keystone pipeline in the transportation bill.

Let's start with a quick tutorial here. Right here above the United States border in Canada, a couple hundred miles north of our border, lies the second or third largest current reserve of oil.

Now, there's already an existing pipeline coming down through the Bakken fields in North Dakota. This blue dotted line is the new pipeline, the one that is of controversy now, mostly because the environmental left, the NRDC and some other organizations that have come out and opposed that because they don't want fossil fuel use, especially a heavier crude. Now, that's the focus of the debate. They have stated that their whole goal here is to kill this pipeline.

Now, what does this pipeline do for the United States of America? First of all, we have the second or third largest reserve here. This pipeline will bring 800,000 barrels per day. We've already heard from two different gentlemen that our country imports about 10 million barrels per day. So if we can bring 800,000 to a million barrels per day, that's that much less that has to be imported from a country like Venezuela. And, by the way, we import about 800,000 to 900,000 barrels per day from Venezuela. Maybe we can stop sending our dollars to Venezuela so they can buy military equipment from Europe--I'm sorry-- from Russia to destabilize South and Central America, which is what these dollars are doing.

So it provides us a level of energy security; offsets imports into our country from countries we don't like.

The bonus here is jobs--10,000 to 20,000 jobs will be created directly. And we hear statements that it won't create jobs, but I can take you to the laborers' facility that has a project labor agreement in hand. I can take you to the IBEW that has a project labor agreement in hand. I can take you to several other of our unions that have agreements ready to go if they would start building this pipeline.

Now, I wanted to mention and clear up some of the misinformation that's out there regarding this pipeline in my home State of Nebraska.

First of all, in the efforts that we took to get this pipeline out of the politics of the White House and into reasonable hands to get this approved, we exempted the State of Nebraska, giving them enough time to find a new route. The President ignored that provision of the bill and still used the State of Nebraska as his excuse to kill the pipeline. We're here today because the President denied their permit, said no to the Keystone pipeline.

Well, as we stand here today, this pipeline has already been rerouted, a different route chosen off of the Sand Hills of Nebraska. The environmental assessment is occurring as we speak here today, and it'll be done in a few months. There is no longer an excuse for the President to use to kill this new permit just recently filed by TransCanada for this pipeline.

So in review, we offset the oil we import from other countries we don't like.

We create 20,000 jobs building this pipeline, and we have a relationship with China where we access the second or third largest reserve.

And the gentleman is right. There's a pipeline that they're building to go off west so the Chinese can have access to part of this. We need this oil. Let's complement our friends and let's pass this pipeline.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for accepting my amendment as part of this en bloc package.

In the last months of the Bush Administration, a change was made authorizing veterans and active-duty military not in uniform to render the military-style hand salute during the playing of the national anthem. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake said at the time, ``The military salute is a unique gesture of respect that marks those who have served in our nation's armed forces. This provision allows the application of that honor in all events involving our nation's flag.''

This change, authorizing hand-salutes during the national anthem by veterans and out-of-uniform military personnel, was included in the Defense Authorization Act of 2009 and improved upon a little known change that was contained in the previous National Defense Authorization Act which authorized veterans to render the military- style hand salute during the raising, lowering or passing of the flag, but it did not address salutes during the national anthem.

These were important changes; however, they should have been broadened even further to authorize veterans and active-duty military not in uniform to render the military-style hand salute during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Current Flag Code states that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,'' should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform, men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute. (Sec. 4. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery)

My amendment is an idea brought to us by our local VFW that simply seeks to create parity for veterans in and out of uniform who are reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Veterans of this great nation take deep pride in being able to express honor in the way only veterans can, each time they reaffirm their pledge of allegiance to our great nation and its colors.

I thank Chairman McKeon for his support of this amendment allowing vets to render a hand salute.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It's a sensible bill that builds a necessary pillar in the cybersecurity strategy of our Nation.

I've immersed myself in cybersecurity over the last couple of years. I've been on two task forces. I'm on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I've met with industry leaders in all of the critical infrastructure areas. And as I've gathered information and input, there's two principles at stake here. The common thread from all of them have said: we have to be flexible, and we have to be able to communicate. Those are the two principles on which this bill is based.

Number one, flexibility. What it means is you can't lock this into a government agency because when government agencies start taking control of setting standards or working with an industry group to set standards on cybersecurity, the hackers take 5 seconds to get around that, and it will take years then for the industry to move around that. You are setting them up as ducks waiting to be shot if we do that. So we can't. We've got to give them the flexibility. The least government interference is what gives them the flexibility.

The next part is communication. What I learned from the critical infrastructure industries is that what they want to know is, is there a threat out there, and what's the specifics of the threat? They know they're under attack every day. Maybe our defense agencies have specific information they can share, but they can't because it's top secret.

So this bill allows there to be communication of specific threats to perhaps communicate from government to private sector some better practices that they can enact. That's what this breaks down, that barrier, not some of these civil liberty conspiracy theories. This is simple communication between government and private sector or private sector to private sector. This isn't

reporting on whether you're downloading an illegal movie or whatever. This is about securing our infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly, the President of the United States knows how to say ``no.'' He says ``no'' to the Keystone pipeline, turning down its application just 3 months ago. This gives the United States access to probably the largest known oil reserve sitting there in a pool in North America, but the President won't allow us to have access to it. Yet during this administration, gas prices at the pump have gone up 120 percent.

People in my district keep asking me, What's the energy policy? I have to tell them I don't know. He kills the pipeline giving us access to oil which would increase supply in the United States, yet sends billions of dollars to Solyndra and solar panel companies to further flood the market with more solar panels. So I don't know what the plan is to lower gas prices because he's not giving us access.

Now, let's look at this $7 billion privately funded--that's right, maybe that's the problem: it's privately funded--infrastructure project to bring us more gasoline. It's denied. A $7 billion project to bring 20,000 new jobs. The President says he'll do anything to create new jobs, but kills the pipeline that would get union workers off the benches and into the fields working.

He kills those 20,000 direct jobs. There's millions of jobs, if we just used our own resources. Do you know that we can be completely energy secure using our own resources? But this administration lacks the will to be able to do that.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I submit that my friend, who just spoke on the other side, maybe was a victim of some poor staff work that took some liberties to revise and extend the real bill that we are debating here today because, frankly, the reforms here are fairly practical and necessary.

What this really does is puts into the process of developing rules some simple changes that we think are reasonably necessary, keeping in mind that transparency is the key. So, for example, let's take the recent USF reform rule that came out. I have been active in USF, Mr. Chairman, for several years trying to get some of these reforms done through Congress. It was taken up through the FCC process. I was anxious to see the proposed rule and was very disappointed when it was basically a rough outline of what turned out to be then passed. Then several days later, or weeks later, the full order came out, 750 pages.

Now, don't you think that if you are going to vote on a proposed rule that you would know what the rule says before you vote on it? It seems rather simple, and I would expect that people that are watching this debate would think that a bureaucracy issuing a proposed rule, that there would actually be a transcript of the rule. So we're just asking for simple things like that.

And last, during this proposed rule, there's a time for comment. And at the end of the comment period this last time--and this is why a shot clock is really necessary--the FCC then dumped volumes of documents that it said it was going to use as evidence in this process, giving people 48 hours.

The only ones that are least disadvantaged by that are the biggest entities that have a houseful of lawyers that could go over it and read it. Rural Nebraska doesn't have the opportunity to do that and reply. So giving them sufficient time to review that just makes common sense.

Mr. Chair, I support full repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The health reform law takes away power that has traditionally been left to Congress, and places health care decisions in the hands of an unelected, board of bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, the House has decided to attach a bipartisan bill to repeal the IPAB, with legislation that is unconstitutional and I believe a federalization of our tort reform system. This is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 and a violation of the 10th Amendment.

Tort law is an area of law traditionally left completely to states discretion. In fact, it's one of the few rights left to the states. Most states have implemented some form of medical liability laws. It is not the federal government's role to say that one state's laws are better than another's or even mandate one state's beliefs on another.

Many of us believe the health reform law is a government takeover of our health care system. If one considers themself to be a true state's rights person, why do we give states the latitude and ability to do it, and then take it away with a one-size-fits all mandate from the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, this week is the Fourth Annual National Association of Chain Drug Stores RxIMPACT Day on Capitol Hill, where we recognize the pharmacy's contribution to the health care system. Hundreds of representatives from the pharmacy community--including practicing pharmacists, pharmacy school faculty and students, state pharmacy leaders, and pharmacy company executives--will visit Capitol Hill to share their views about the importance of supporting legislation that protects access to neighborhood pharmacies and utilizes pharmacists to improve the quality of care and reduce the cost of health care.

Pharmacists are the nation's most accessible healthcare providers, and are important providers in communities across America. Pharmacists serve an important role in our health care system as they help improve quality and lower health care costs. For over a century, they have made a difference in the lives of my fellow citizens in Nebraska, as well as Americans throughout the nation.

Pharmacists received specialized educational training that allows them to play a major role in our health care system. These important services include medication therapy management, disease state management, immunizations, and healthcare screenings. Pharmacists are also uniquely qualified to educate and help patients manage their medications, which is extremely important to helping keep our population healthy and control costs.

On this day, I hope you will join me in celebrating the value of pharmacy and support efforts to protect access to neighborhood pharmacies.

First, I want to mention to my friend from New Jersey that we have several bills, including that of the Keystone pipeline, sitting over in the Senate. They're bills that will create tens of thousands of jobs, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet it does not seem that Harry Reid would like to bring those to the floor, so we are doing our job here.

Mr. Speaker, this bill today is about creating, really, a new environment for job creation in recognizing the human suffrage that has occurred in the Central Valley. I visited out there almost 2 years ago and saw the level of employment and the human impact of this Federal mandate upon California under the Endangered Species Act.

I don't know about the court case where it really raised some serious issues regarding the credibility behind the rule, itself. What I do know is that, by passing this bill today, we basically push the restart button so that the entities that are hurt and the environmentalists can work together for an appropriate balanced rule that protects people's livelihoods as well.

This should be a bipartisan bill. It came out of committee as a bipartisan bill. This is exactly the type of thing that we should be working together and across the aisle on, and I would encourage my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to join with us in passing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise during Black History Month to remember the important contributions that African Americans have made to our nation--and to honor the extraordinary people who continue to help shape my community of Omaha. Today, I would like to pay special tribute to Thomas L. Harvey, one of the thousands of successful and talented African Americans in the Second Congressional District of Nebraska.

Thomas Harvey always wanted to be a positive influence in children's lives. He first did so as a fifth grade elementary school teacher in Monroe, Louisiana; later, in addition to teaching, he took on school football and basketball coaching duties. An Omaha Public Schools Recruiter was encouraged by Teacher Corp's positive evaluation of Thomas, to convince Thomas that his work could be continued in Omaha, where an underserved youth community could truly benefit from his presence.

Mr. Harvey moved to Omaha, and the rest is history. He went on to become the principal of Omaha North High's magnet school. After his time at the magnet school, Mr. Harvey served as a principal at the Omaha area's first magnet middle school, McMillan, and he later returned to North High to serve as the principal of its general student body. Under his guidance and direction, the magnet school programs at these schools quickly went from initial planning stages to implementation and success. These days, Harvey is well known for being a motivational educator who has contributed greatly to his schools' rise to excellence, as well as an inspirational leader in the community.

During Mr. Harvey's tenure as principal of North High School, the school was cited for its excellent academic programs--in both Newsweek and Redbook magazines--and was featured as a premiere high school on numerous television shows, including NBC's Nightly News. Under Mr. Harvey's management, North High was deemed a Magnet School of Excellence in 1997, by the Magnet Schools of America. Mr. Harvey continues to promote excellence in education--currently serving as the Assistant Superintendent of Student and Community Services for Omaha Public Schools.

In addition to his service to students, Mr. Harvey is active in several local, state, and national organizations. He is a board member of Magnet Schools of America, and Communities in Schools of Omaha. He also serves as a member of the Site Visitation Team for the U.S. Department of Secondary Education, and is a member of the Metropolitan Community College Advisory Committee.

I am proud to recognize and honor this highly esteemed and dedicated educator for his four and a half decades of selfless service to the Omaha Community.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise during Black History Month--to acknowledge the important contributions that African- Americans have made, and continue to make to American society. Today, I honor some of the extraordinary citizens who have shaped Nebraska's Second District, and our great nation. Let's pay special tribute to Dr. and Mrs. Dick C.E. Davis, two highly respected and successful members of my community of Omaha.

This couple has long been recognized as dedicated supporters of projects and causes that improve the lives of Nebraskans--particularly those hit hardest by poverty and the declining economic heft of our minority communities. Late last year, the couple celebrated the 40th anniversary of Davis Companies: a family business that has long been recognized as a pillar in Omaha's business community, recently being acknowledged as one of the ten fastest-growing Omaha businesses.

Rather than resting on the success of Davis Companies, the Davis family has turned a laser-like focus to restoring a vibrant economic renaissance in Omaha's minority sectors.

In 1989, the Davis family pioneered the State's first public/private funding allocated to addressing the underrepresentation of all minority students--in every sector of public post-secondary education. Since its inception, the Davis-Chambers scholarship fund has grown to a more than 3 million dollar endowment. It has fully funded undergraduate educations for more than 300 of Nebraska's ``best and brightest'' minority students.

Dr. Davis also helped acquire and disperse more than $385 thousand dollars in grants--to test a groundbreaking entrepreneurship education program in Omaha's public schools.

On the business front, the couple has spearheaded a private capital fund to provide seed money for minority-owned small businesses. The program identifies promising small businesses, coaches them through growth, provides initial start-up funds, and stands behind them as they grow into their own creditworthiness and financial maturity. More than 86 businesses have gone through the process, and in the initial run, reported a default rate of less than 3 percent--an excellent rate, considering that the national trend shows over half of these type of loans failing.

These are just a sample of the myriad achievements and selfless actions in education, community service, and wealth-building endeavors that the couple has undertaken to leave an indelible mark on the economy and future of my hometown. I am proud to recognize and honor Dr. Dick C.E. Davis and Mrs. Charon Davis for their service to our community, and the nation.

Mr. Chairman, the language that we're discussing at this current time is allowing the Keystone pipeline a path forward. It's based on a bill I introduced back in September, which is H.R. 3548. Keep in mind that the President of the United States killed the Keystone pipeline. We think that was kowtowing to the environmental extremists, some of which may be in the House of Representatives, or represented here today. But the reality is that it was a wrong decision. It is in the best interests of our Nation to have the Keystone pipeline bringing oil from Alberta oil sands into the United States, where it can be refined and used in the United States, offsetting imported oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Keystone pipeline would take these supplies from Canada and use them in the United States, creating tens of thousands of jobs over a 2-year to 2\1/2\ year construction phase with permanent jobs thereafter to maintain the pipeline and its hubs along the 1,700-mile pipeline.

Now, as far as the environmental objections to the project are concerned, I wish more people would have read the administration's own final environmental impact study. It found that not building the Keystone XL would lead to more oil being transported by riskier means, such as tankers, trains, and trucks. For this reason, the administration's folks concluded that the building of the pipeline is environmentally preferable to not building the pipeline and that its route was safe. Then the Nebraska Governor requested that, just for a little bit of Nebraska, that they do a 30- or 40-mile loop. The path was set, except for this little loop.

Now, it would take a long time to dispel all the myths that have been perpetuated by the opponents in the environmental community. But it's worth noting that these are intrastate issues well on their way to being resolved and, in fact, were carved out in the previous bill mentioned by the gentleman from California, but the President ignored the Nebraska exemption giving Nebraska time to work through its change of route for about 40 or 50 miles of the 1,700. He never mentioned that and killed the pipeline.

So we give a pathway forward to TransCanada to re-file its permit with all of the environmental documents that it has gathered over the last 3 years, presented to the administration last year, and give time to Nebraska to resolve their issue.

So, politics of the extreme put us in this position. But let's ask, who benefits from this oil coming into the United States from our partner, Canada, and being refined and used in the United States of America? If we have this, everyone benefits in our Nation. If we don't have this pipeline to displace the oil, who wins? Venezuela, which continues to send us 900,000 barrels per day, and Saudi Arabia. Our reliance just grows for these nations' oil supplies. That's who wins, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is one of those myths that we must try to dispel. I guess if you say it enough times, some people will start believing it. But the reality is, why would you build a pipeline 1,700 miles, branching off to several refineries along the way, to our main refineries in Texas and Louisiana, simply to put it on a boat, send it through South America over to China, when they're already discussing, because the President denied this permit and set off a little bit of an international fury, sending a message to the rest of the world that we're going to kowtow to the environmental extremists as our energy policy in the United States, they are now talking about, or have been for some time, of just building a pipeline straight from the Alberta tar sands up here, all the way to Vancouver coast.

Now, let me just read some of the article, since Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to China last week to court them to buy the oil that the United States just rejected when the President denied the Keystone XL permit.

This is from an article from Ottawa.ctv, referring to the Prime Minister:

He also made a subtle dig at environmentalists who helped

block TransCanada's planned Keystone XL pipeline, which would

have carried Canada's oil to refineries in the United States.

``We uphold our responsibility to put the interests of

Canadians ahead of foreign money and influence that seek to

obstruct development in Canada in favor of energy imported

from other, less stable parts of the world,'' he told the

dinner.

By the way, he was referring to Saudi Arabia, Middle East, and Venezuela where we're getting our oil now and will continue to do so unless this Keystone pipeline is built offsetting up to a million barrels per day.

In Bloomberg on February 10, Harper said he is committed to ``profoundly'' diversifying the country's energy exports that will facilitate construction of new infrastructure needed to ship the country's oil to China.

He's not talking about Keystone pipeline. He's talking about the new one along the west to Vancouver.

The article continues:

Canada, which holds the third largest oil reserves, is

seeking to reduce its reliance on the United States after

President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.'s $7

billion Keystone XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf

Coast.

``We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our

energy.''

That's why he went to China because obviously it's not the United States.

Oil and Gas Journal states:

Harper's visit was described as an open warning to

Washington after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone

pipeline.

``It's not a subtle warning. It's an open warning. Harper

has said Keystone was a

wake-up call,'' said Wenran Jiang, an energy expert at the

University of Alberta.

Now, next, Washington Post:

Chinese state-controlled Sinopec has a stake in a proposed

Canadian pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that would

substantially boost Chinese investment in Alberta oil sands.

From today, February 15, Kinder Morgan pipeline--this is from the Houston Business Journal--the chief of Port Metro Vancouver, the city's port authority, said the port would be willing to undertake the dredging and infrastructure work necessary to allow the bigger ships into the port that could carry crude shipped to the coast from Alberta oil sands.

The reality is if you want this oil to go to China, kill the XL pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, and let this one be built in Canada, which Canada is already preparing to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment just defies logic in the sense that the refined product of gasoline is going to be used in the United States. Now, the fallacy of this amendment here is it says all of the refined products. Well, there's stuff that's left over after the process that we can't even use in the United States that's commonly exported today for decades.

We actually don't use all of the diesel, and we trade with Europe to bring in more gasoline.

So what this amendment is trying to do is, A, start a trade war because it violates all trade rules and regulations. But the reality is it's a misnomer. If you really want this oil to go to China and us to have to continue to import from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, then vote ``yes'' on this amendment because evidently you're more concerned about jobs in China than you are in the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

None of us are smiling over the fact that the President killed the pipeline that would have created 20,000 jobs and that would have provided us a newer level of energy security. This amendment, in essence, is a way of killing this pipeline. Let's be clear about this.

The pipeline is 1,700 miles, and through each State this proposed pipeline would pass, the pipeline company would negotiate with the landowners on the proposed routes. So, if you have one person who objects, then he can ostensibly kill the pipeline. In every State, there is a mechanism in its own State laws that resolves any disputes for a right-of-way. We've heard some language here about taking people's property. This is for use of a property and a right-of-way, a small strip of land, okay? So their rights are protected. The States' rights are protected.

What this amendment would do is to strip the States of their rights here, and it would send them off to an unknown area that has no rights to resolve any disputes. They only need one landowner to kill a 1,700- mile project. The gentleman that the gentleman from Chicago mentioned is one of those people. He belongs to BOLD Nebraska, an organization of environmentalists that wants to kill the pipeline.

At this point, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield so I can answer the question?

The answer to that question would be that each State has set up a due process law----

They don't take. * * *

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, January 23, 2012, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act, H.R. 3261.

Mr. Speaker, why are many of us on the House floor tonight after regular business talking about

the Keystone Pipeline? Because it's a win-win--20,000 immediate contracting support jobs for the construction of a 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada, down to our refineries in south Texas and then over to Louisiana. Beginning when this pipeline is finished, it will bring about 600,000, 700,000 barrels of oil to the United States from our good friend, Canada.

Now, just to put that amount in perspective, $700,000, they expect that by the time it's fully operational it will be $1 million.

To put it in context, today we are importing 900,000 barrels from Venezuela. We import 1.2 million from Saudi Arabia. So take it which way you want, but our friends from Canada, Alberta, just a few hundred miles north of our border, will produce enough oil to almost completely offset the heavy crude from Venezuela or Saudi Arabian oil. The reality, my friends, is that we have enough energy resources in the United States and Canada to be free of OPEC oil.

Now, we talk about 20,000 direct jobs from a $7 billion project that is sitting waiting to go. They have their project labor agreement sitting. There are union folk ready to go to work. All it has to do is be approved, the permit for this, approved by the President. Once he says yes, 20,000 people go to work and we put ourselves on a path to greater energy security.

That's one of the reasons why I fought so hard to get onto the Energy and Commerce Committee--to set us on a path to energy security where we don't have to send our money, U.S. consumers' dollars, to buy the energy necessary to propel our economy. But a funny thing happened on the road to energy security. The environmentalists said that this is heavy crude, and it is going to expel in the process too much CO2. They want to stop fossil fuels. So instead of using the most energy-efficient refineries in the world that would have the least emissions of CO2, I guess the environmental community would rather it go to China, where they have few pollution and carbon controls on their refineries. And by the way, China just bought half of the oil sands just a week ago; they'd be glad to buy the other half if we don't. So it's going to be refined.

The President has until February 21 to say yes or no to this. That was by act of Congress, setting that deadline, because the original application was filed September of 2008, 3 years and 4 months ago. The average is 18 months for a transcontinental pipeline. This administration has been dragging its feet because they don't want to irritate the environmental community, which has been heightened now since we're into an election year. I wish we could have done this before we got into 2012, where it could be based on the merits and not the politics, but politics is what we're dealing with right now. The President said several times in the last few weeks that, geez, because Congress has forced my hand on making a decision before February 21, that's not enough time, so I may just have to deny it. Well, that's complete bull.

Here's a document. I apologize to the gallery and maybe our C-SPAN viewers because the print is rather small, but this is an administration document from their agency dated July 25, Executive Office of the President, July 25. Let me read the important sentence here, the significant sentence in their document, the bill that we had then on July 25. They say it's unnecessary because the Department of State--who makes the recommendation to the President--has been working diligently to complete the permit decision process for the Keystone XL pipeline and has publicly committed to reaching a decision before December 31, 2011.

Two other documents from the State Department have said that they have all the information they need, they're working diligently, and they will have the recommendation to the President by December 31, 2011, which of course they have not made. And the President says, geez, Congress, no reason for you to get involved because we're working diligently and we have all the information we need, and we will make a decision. Then, just prior to December 31, they're starting to say we want more information, or you're putting us in a box where we're going to have to say no. Bull. This is all politics. Stop playing politics, Mr. President, and put us on a road that we can be energy independent. And at a time of high unemployment, where these tradespeople are standing around waiting for work, put them back to work now, Mr. President.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore