Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, we are going to discuss energy security, American jobs, and the Keystone XL pipeline.

At this time I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Joe Barton of Texas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Barton.

At this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the other gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. I do appreciate your insight and your support.

Let me take this opportunity--we've had two speakers already that have talked in support of the Keystone pipeline. Now let me give kind of a tutorial of what we're talking about. It is a 1,700-mile pipeline from the oil sands of Alberta coming down through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and as our two previous speakers said, then down into southeast Texas and Louisiana, where most of the refineries are. It will break off at different points in Kansas and then also to the east, to other refineries. But there are very few refineries in the Midwest. So most of the refineries will then refine this into a variety of fuels--mostly for our automobiles, and then diesel and aviation fuel as well. It will produce 700,000 barrels per day once it's built.

What does that mean to us by way of energy security? Well, first of all, we import on a daily basis almost 900,000 barrels of oil per day from Venezuela. So this one pipeline, starting in Canada, ending in Texas, would nearly offset 100 percent of what we import to this country from Venezuela. Our reliance on OPEC oil--our major OPEC exporter to us is Saudi Arabia, where they export around 1.2 million barrels per day. Now when this is fully built and the oil sands are really humming, they think they can get up to 1.1 million per day through this pipeline.

That then would nearly offset what we have to buy from Saudi Arabia. We

use about 19 million barrels per day in the United States. We produce domestically within the United States about 8\1/2\, flirting with 9 now with the Bakken finds in North Dakota. So if we can import from just miles over the Canadian border, we go a long way to making us more secure.

Now, on a different hour we can maybe talk about other resources we can use in transportation fuels so we can be 100 percent secure, not relying on foreign countries, especially like Venezuela.

But when we talk about what is on the minds of most Americans, and that's jobs, yes, the unemployment rate has finally dipped below 9 percent. Of course, you have to put an asterisk because 300,000 of that in the last month were just people who were chronically unemployed and have given up and are no longer counted. So the reality we saw in a recent poll, I think it may have been Gallup, said that the real unemployment rate is somewhere around 11 percent.

They want to see Congress do something to create jobs. They want to see us stop bickering about things, probably like Keystone pipeline that seemed to be for many people a no-brainer, energy security and American jobs.

So let's talk about the jobs. Obviously, in a 1,700-mile pipeline, you will need a lot of labor to build that, especially within the 2- year timeframe that they have now. So all estimates, except for one produced by the environmental extremists that are in opposition done by a Cornell University professor that says it won't create any jobs; and, besides, if it did, they are temporary and dirty--that logic befuddles me because all construction jobs are temporary. So, obviously, he doesn't like construction jobs. That's the only thing I can think of. You know, we don't count construction jobs.

Well, as mentioned by Judge Carter, there are labor agreements. The people, this 20,000 that is estimated to be the direct jobs, those people who are directly working on the pipeline from Teamsters to Earth-movers to sheet metal workers to pipe fitters to laborers, to the electricians that will build all of the electronics for the pump stations along the way, this will create 20,000 jobs. And those are just direct jobs. As we heard from Judge Carter that doesn't count the spinoffs that occur in the refinery expansions, the extra jobs that will be needed to handle the extra oil in the refineries, and the suppliers.

In fact, there is a business just south of my district in Auburn, Nebraska, that makes parts for oil refineries. They will have increased orders in people going back to work.

It was interesting, just yesterday there was an article online from a Fox affiliate in Little Rock, Arkansas, who had to lay off 500 people. Why? They make pipe. They make pipelines, and they are the fabricator of metal going into the pipelines. They have an order from TransCanadian pipeline for this project. Because this has been stalled out and they don't need to fill an order because there is no order to fill yet, they have laid off 500 people. They are projecting that unless this gets started, they will have to lay off more people, and it will probably be within the next week that they will lay off a few hundred more people. Think of that, being laid off--laid off your job on the eve of Christmas.

So these folks that say there's no jobs created, tell that to the 500, and maybe the 800 total, that are laid off just at one pipeline- making facility in Arkansas that their jobs are worthless; so we don't care if they are laid off. That's the message that I hear from those that are opposing this pipeline, because it is providing hydrocarbons, and they just want to flip the switch.

Now, let's talk about this pipeline. I want to rebut some of the arguments that I've heard lately about it.

Number one is that we are rushing it. We are rushing this pipeline. Well, number one, this pipeline application was filed 3 years, 3 months ago. The average time it takes to permit a pipeline--transcontinental, coming over our border--has been around 18 months. So we're double the time. More than double the time that it usually takes. Why? Well, because of the environmentalists. The far left of the environmental movement has raised environmental concerns, mostly due to the fact that it is a heavy crude that will come in from Canada, which confuses me because Venezuela is an equally heavy crude, but somehow that's okay. Well, okay with some, but not with me.

So to engineer this pipeline, what the pipeline company has to do is provide with their application an environmental study, and they have decided that since there are environmental concerns that they are going to over-engineer this pipeline; they will, in sensitive areas, like coming through Nebraska where it would have crossed the Sandhills, but our Governor has talked them into moving it off of that sensitive ecosystem in the Sandhills. So when they move it 50 miles to the east in Nebraska, they will double-case it. They said they will put it in cement.

Another item that is over-engineered above and beyond pipeline standards is pump stations. Why are pump stations necessary? Well, you've got to pump it through the pipeline. Even though it goes north to south, you still need pressure in there to move it. The pump stations usually are several hundred, a couple hundred, miles apart. They have agreed to put more pump stations in. Why is that important? Well, it is the way they determine if there's a leak. So by moving the pump stations closer, they can, in a more timely fashion, determine if there's a leak.

Also, they have promised in areas where there is water and sensitivity that they will put employees permanently in that area. That is unique to any pipeline in the United States.

The unwritten standard of the industry is if there is a decrease in pressure, they get there within 4 to 5 hours. This pipeline has not only moved the pump stations closer so they can read it earlier in time if there's a drop in pressure, i.e. a leak, but they will have somebody close enough that they could be there within 1 hour. That's five times better than the national unwritten standard.

So the fact that this will cause environmental harm is just wrong, other than the fact that it's an oil and it's going to be refined and there will be carbon emissions from that. But the point I want to make is the refineries in the United States are state of the art in pollution technologies. Our refineries in the United States, in refining oil to our fuel, emits far less carbon in that process than any other refineries around the world. So I would ask the environmentalists that are opposing this that if they send the oil over to China, why wouldn't you want it refined where it's going to emit the least amount of carbon in the manufacturing process?

Now, because of the long delay, I introduced a bill in the springtime to set a deadline of November 1. The environmental studies had already been done. The supplemental environmental study on top of the first one was already done and was just sitting there. So we set a date. Some of my friends on committee, like Mr. Sullivan from Oklahoma, and I picked an arbitrary date--well, not too arbitrary. It gave them enough time to get through it, go out for more public comment, then 60 days after that to make a decision, and that would be November 1. We passed that bill in the House, we sent it to the Senate, and Harry Reid refused to bring it up on the floor.

During that time, the State Department said that's unnecessary because we're on track to have the decision made on this pipeline by December 31--by December 31. And they first told us that March 15. And I'll read from you a U.S. Department of State Diplomacy in Action, March 15, 2011. It says the U.S. Department of State expects to make a decision on whether to grant or deny the permit before the end of 2011. April 15, 2011, they also state publicly and to our committee, the U.S. Department of State expects to make a decision on whether to grant or deny the permit by the end of 2011. So March they say that, April they say that.

And then after this House passes with overwhelming support, bipartisan support, nearly 50 Democrats joining us--the State Department says, and here is their memo to us, and it says, we don't need to have a bill to permit the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline by November 1, 2011. The bill is unnecessary because the State Department 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. They are diligently working, July 25, diligently working, and will have the decision by December 31.

This is important. Why? Because the President of the United States, just 2 days ago, stood up and said, if I have to sign a bill with Keystone Pipeline in it, you are rushing us and may be forcing the State Department to deny it because they don't have enough time. Bull.

Their own documents from April, March, and July have said they've been working diligently and will have the decision. And by the way, if the Keystone bill is passed--it passed out of the House overwhelmingly 2 days ago. It's sitting over in the Senate with the unemployment insurance bill and a myriad of other bills that have been put together. So, really, from what they've told us already, they are already ready. They can make a decision right now. They've been studying it since April. They're done. They know what the decision is.

Do you know why the President said that? And this is what is probably most disappointing to me: politics. Yeah. Election year politics. The environmentalists have made statements like, this is where the President can get his environmental mojo back if he denies the permit. That's what one environmental group said. The others have just challenged him to kill this pipeline.

The issue is the President does not want to make a decision between his environmental groups that flat told him, this is a quote, a direct quote that has been published in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and many other newspapers. They told him, we will not mobilize our environmentalists in the 2011 election if you approve this pipeline. Amazingly, it was only days after that threat was made to the President that he decided that he will not make a decision until after the election.

Folks, politics--energy politics--is now causing layoffs in Arkansas right before the holidays. There's people sitting in my union halls in Omaha, Nebraska, ready to go to work, but the President says, I'm not even going to tell you if you're going to go to work on this until 2013.

Mr. President, I respectfully ask that you act on this permit, put aside election year politics, make a decision on the merits of this project, and listen to your agencies. The State Department chose this route as the most environmentally safe route. This will employ 20,000 people; secondary, tertiary jobs in support, perhaps another 100,000. If we started using all of our resources in the United States, we could employ millions. Let's do the right thing for this country.

I want to ask my friend from Tulsa, Oklahoma, the vice chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, if he would brief us on his feelings about Keystone Pipeline.

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, and I appreciate your support on this issue.

At this time I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, one of the new phenoms on our Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Kinzinger.

I thank you for your support for this effort for American jobs.

At this time I'd like to recognize another one of our freshman phenoms on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Morgan Griffith.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

I'd like to just take the last couple of minutes to close here.

What we have is a $7 billion infrastructure project for the United States of America that will immediately employ 20,000 workers. It's a 2-year-plus project. It will add--then, that's not even counting the spin-off jobs to support and to expand the refineries, the

permanent jobs that will be created there.

So I ask the people that are watching here today and the American public to let Congress know, to let the President know that it's important to you that we create jobs in America. This project, when approved, would start the next day moving ground, employing people.

Let's do that. Let's get America back to work. Let's help create American jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think coupling--putting the unemployment extension, the tax holiday, the doc fix, and a real jobs bill together--which is what the American people have been telling Congress for the entire year, that they want to see tangible job creation. There's no better job creator in the pipeline--pun intended--than Keystone XL.

It's a 1,700-mile, $7 billion, shovel-ready project--not the fake shovel-ready in the stimulus, but real, ready, earnestly ready to start digging right now. The only holdup for Keystone pipeline's permit is the politics of the 2012 election. The process sits in the State Department.

So what we say is in this bill, State Department, use the information that has been sitting on your desk collecting dust. You said you would make a decision by December 31. We just want you to make it 60 days after the permit's again requested, with the carve-out for the Nebraska exemption.

Why is it so important? Well, it really does displace 700,000 barrels of imported oil, almost the entire amount from Venezuela or about half from Saudi Arabia. It creates 20,000 jobs nearly instantaneously, 20,000 new jobs.

It seems to me that as we're talking about putting food on the table and Christmastime that this is meat and potatoes. The potatoes will sustain you like the unemployment insurance, but what people really want is the red meat of good, high-paying jobs, labor that they can go to. And I bet you that the AFL-CIO wants this Keystone pipeline built.

Mr. Speaker, it just seems logical that as we have a bill to extend unemployment insurance for those unemployed that we also have a measure for them to become employed, and that's the Keystone pipeline. It is a $7 billion infrastructure project that is ready to start today, employing as many as 20,000 laborers--mostly union labor, by the way.

Now, not only will it employ, but the delays of the State Department and the White House in permitting this project are costing jobs.

And I refer to Little Rock Fox Channel 16. There's their online story that says:

``Layoffs and a brief company shutdown is what employees face at Wellspun Tubular Company, which makes steel pipes for the oil industry.

``Company leaders say miles of pipeline are on the property, and that has caused five dozen employees to lose their jobs. The pipes would be part of the Keystone oil pipeline, which is a project running from Canada to Texas.''

The President has said that he would veto this bill extending unemployment and his tax holiday if this Keystone jobs bill was put in it. Mr. President, this is about creating jobs. Please join us.

Also, they said that the State Department may have to say no because they're rushed. But this is the same State Department that back in June testified before our committee that they could have the decision made on this pipeline by December 31.

The environmental studies have been there for months. This application has been with the State Department for 3\1/2\ years. The State Department has everything they need to make a correct recommendation for the President.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I am amused, humored by the opposition, all hailing from our greatest cities in the United States, urban areas.

I would like to read a note that I received from a rancher in Nebraska and our Nebraska cattlemen representing those who are affected:

The bill is needed to provide regulatory certainty to rural areas. We applaud the recent statement from Administrator Jackson that EPA does not intend to propose revisions to the current dust standard. The reality is, however, that regulations often change from the proposal stage of a rulemaking to the final. For example, in 1996, EPA proposed to remove the PM10 24-hour standard altogether, only to bring it back in the final rule. And in 2006, EPA proposed to exempt agriculture dust, but that exemption also disappeared in the final rule. Second, under the Clean Air Act, EPA must review this standard every 5 years. That

means we could face the same challenges again in just 5 short years. Also, citizen lawsuits could be brought that could result in a court deciding farm dust should be regulated. H.R. 1633 is the only way to provide regulatory certainty to farmers, ranchers, and rural residents.

Nuisance dust occurs naturally in rural areas. The type of ``nuisance dust'' that this bill would exempt from Federal regulation occurs naturally in rural areas, especially in arid and windy areas of the Plains and western States. This dust does not stay in the air but falls out quickly. Rural fugitive dust travels only a short distance from emission point. It settles out of the air quickly because of its size, making dust a localized issue. In fact, according to a study done by Hoffnagle, rural dust will fall out of the air within a thousand meters of its source.

This is not fairy dust or fables or tales to our folks in rural America; this is real and they want certainty.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I thank the chairman and appreciate the gentleman from Boston's arguments here suggesting that this bill somehow exempts arsenic and all these poisons. The reality is it does not. It's an unnecessary amendment. It, one, is to make a point that I think is inflated.

The reality is emissions of arsenic above the standard would still be in violation of EPA rules. The reality also exists then, if you're going to move the goalpost to a zero particulate, then we've got a different issue here.

Now, the dust that we're talking about from agricultural activities-- plowing, harvesting, driving on roads--in our own definition says that consists primarily of soil and other natural and biological materials. So, if you're going to adopt a new standard totally different than current standards at the EPA on such issues as arsenic, the reality in rural America is that it is a natural part of our soil, and when dust would kick up and blow, it will be at a particulate level below what the standards are.

We're just trying to say, look, the reality is the EPA even says that at the extremely minor level of particulates that would be inherent in topsoil that could be kicked up by wind or farming activities is not a health risk. In fact, one of the authors of the EPA's most recent integrated science assessment for particulate matter issued in 2010 testified before our committee and stated, ``For long-term effects of coarse particulates, there is next to no evidence in support of long- term health effects.''

In rural America, in Nebraska, we can show you real-life examples. In rural America, they have the highest health standards and longevity of life and health.

So with that, I will let the gentleman close on his amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Keith Olsen for the contributions he has made to both Nebraskan and American agriculture during his tenure with the Nebraska Farm Bureau.

Keith, born in Imperial, Nebraska, started his ag work back in high school--getting active with the Future Farmers of America. Now, decades later, he is well-known by his fellow ag producers for serving the Nebraskan ag community with a spirit and verve second to none, and his career shows this.

Since 1992, Keith has served on the Nebraska Farm Bureau Board of Directors. In

1997, he was elected as the first Vice President of the Nebraska Farm Bureau Board. Five years later, in 2002, he became the Board's President. In 2004, Keith was elected to the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors.

Keith understands that Nebraska--in very many ways--is agriculture, and for decades now, he has worked tirelessly to advance Nebraska ag producers, protect them from burdensome regulations and to open new markets for their products. Keith's resolve and commitment to Nebraska and its ag industry are second to none.

Next month, Keith will retire from the Nebraska Farm Bureau. I wish him and Doris all the luck in the world with the next chapter of their lives. While his presence will be missed in the Nebraska ag community, it comforts me knowing that their love for agriculture and the Nebraska way of life will never fade.

``It is the debtor that is ruined by hard times.'' That was said by our 19th President, Rutherford B. Hayes. It is a timely and insightful comment.

The United States now is the debtor. We are $15 trillion in debt, rising at a yearly clip of $1.5 trillion with really no institutional control to stop that.

Yes, we're in hard times--9 percent-plus unemployment for 3 years straight. A report the other day said the real unemployment rate from those that have just given up is probably closer to 15 percent--16 million to 20 million Americans. Our savings, decreasing, mostly because of the dollars that are going towards buying bonds or selling bonds to China.

Now, before us this week, though, is probably one of the most important votes that this Congress will take this year, and that is to pass an amendment to our Constitution forcing this body to balance its budget. Now I know it's stunning to many people that our Constitution didn't have that. There were lots of fail-safes built into our Constitution, and I think that our Founding Fathers never thought that deficit spending other than at a time of war would ever occur in our country, but it has, and it's become the norm.

Why has it become the norm in Congress? Simply answered, because you can. There's nothing to stop it. The easiest way, the most political way so you never have to say ``no'' is to deficit spend. My friends, that has to end. It has to end this congressional session.

Now, the balanced budget amendment is a simple one. It says, basically, we cannot spend more than our revenues. That's what most State constitutions have, that's what the Nebraska constitution has, and that's what the city charter for Omaha has. I spent 8 years on the Omaha city council. We had to have a balanced budget. You have to make tough decisions. I've been there when people have come and said, we need new water parks or we need something else. We on the city council, because we had to live by a balanced budget, had to make a decision of raising taxes, cutting somewhere else, or saying ``no.'' Those are your only three options.

Well the time has come that Congress needs the institutional barriers to spending, and it's the balanced budget amendment. It will be the institutionalized discipline that has been lacking here for decades. The time has come to pass it.

I want to leave this one general point, both disappointing and hopeful. There was an article in USA Today, November 4 or so, 11, 12 days ago, where it quoted the Democratic leadership saying to their own people, kill the balanced budget amendment. They want to preserve the right to deficit spend our future away at $1.5 trillion per year. Fortunately, as we have heard from one Democratic Member, he's not following the Democratic leadership's orders here. I hope that we will get enough of our Democratic friends who believe in fiscal discipline to join us. It takes two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to do that. It will be a close vote. So on something as simple as saying that our expenditures can't exceed our revenues, I ask for all of my colleagues' support.

Mr. Speaker, I'm the author of one of the bills sitting in the Senate, the ``forgotten 15.'' This is a bill that will instantaneously create 20,000 jobs and spin off a potential 100,000 to 200,000 additional jobs and put us on the path to energy security. I'm talking about the pipeline bill, the Keystone XL pipeline.

Now, that bill was passed on a massive bipartisan vote, 279-174, one of the best bipartisan showings of nonsuspension bills. It was placed on the Senate calendar on July 28. We held a press conference asking the Senate to take it up. We sent a bipartisan letter to the majority leader asking him to place it on the calendar for vote.

This bill just simply set a timeline for the President and State Department to make a decision. Then, it was November 1. We sit here on this day, November 4--I think it's the 4th--and the President just said 2 days ago to a local Omaha TV station anchorman that he'll make a decision in a few months.

Well, I would encourage the Senate to take up this bill; change the date, obviously, maybe to December 1 or December 15 or December 31. But the reality is this permit for this pipeline is 1,142 days old. That's double the record time for any other transcontinental pipeline--double.

Yes, there is a political storm about environmental safety. This trans-Canadian pipeline has been studied more than any other pipeline. The environmental assessments say this is the most secure pipeline ever designed and has little to no impact to the environment of the sand hills of Nebraska and the underlying aquifer.

Now, since all of the studies have shown there's little to no risk to the environment and pipelines remain the safest way to transport oil to our United States refineries, this puts us on a path to energy security. In fact, the 700,000 barrels that come from our friend Canada offset the oil we import from Venezuela. And even the Department of Energy said that this will almost offset all of OPEC oil. I think that secures our Nation.

And did I again--should I mention the 20,000 labor jobs created by this pipeline, the fact that it doesn't impact the fragility, the ecosystem or environment of the sand hills and the aquifer?

Mr. Leader, bring this bill up in the Senate. Let's create these jobs, let's produce our infrastructure, and let's secure America's energy future.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 358, The Protect Life Act. This bill would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through any program authorized by the health care law.

Nebraskans feel strongly--federal dollars should never be used to pay for abortion coverage. Unfortunately, last year's misguided health care law contains loopholes and ambiguities, which opens the door to allow taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion. This bill also protects the right of conscience for health care professionals by ensuring private insurance companies are not mandated to cover abortion. This bill does allow for some exemptions, including if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is endangered.

This bill specifically targets the abortion funding scheme created in PPACA. I have always been an ardent supporter of the unborn, and today's vote is a step towards protecting those that cannot protect themselves.

Mr. Chair. We are lucky in Nebraska.

Our unemployment rate is currently around 4.2%.

Personally, I'd like to see it be an even smaller number.

Without passage of H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250, we will see job loss in Nebraska.

With regards to the Boiler MACT rules--Nebraska estimates a potential job loss of 921 jobs at a cost of over 57 million dollars.

With regards to the Cement MACT rules--Nebraska estimates a cost of $24-28 million to keep the approximately 135 jobs.

These bills give EPA time to reconsider and re-propose these regulations so the final rules are achievable and based on real-world technologies.

We like our low unemployment numbers in Nebraska and passing these two bills will help ensure our numbers stay low.

Mr. President, don't let the EPA kill jobs in my state.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I believe that the gentlelady from California's amendment is heartfelt and sincere to the DERA program but irresponsible as it's produced here today. There are costs associated with the EPA going forward with the studies that we are requesting of them.

Under our rules of the House, there's PAYGO rules. We must offset those costs. This is one of those tough decisions made to offset the costs. So the first line of irresponsibility would be it will add to the deficit but for this offset.

The second line of irresponsibility would be, well, it may feel responsible. And this really is a poison pill because if the offset is eliminated, they get to kill the whole bill because of that. So it's not as innocent an amendment as it is portrayed on the surface. The real issue of this bill in entirety must stand.

As previous speakers have said, Mr. Chairman, and rightfully so, the EPA is a rogue agency. They are producing rules in a fast and furious manner that greatly affects this Nation's ability to generate electricity. This bill just wraps three of them together and says, take a step back and do a cost analysis, as the President has asked of agencies. This agency, though, as headed by Ms. Jackson, has said to us in our committee that she will not be beholding or follow the President's own executive order to look at the cost benefit analysis. They say, as we have heard here today, their modeling says that they can reduce asthma so, therefore, no cost benefit analysis.

But there are real effects that I'm concerned with here, and the reason why I do believe this needs to be studied before implemented is we need to slow down the EPA and Lisa Jackson and their attempts to do a cap program without Congress' involvement or approval. They couldn't get it done legislatively, so she's doing it by rule and edict from the

Mr. Chairman, I think it's interesting that she didn't refute the point that if the PAYGO is eliminated, hers passes, they raise a point of order and kill the bill, which is the real impetus behind this amendment.

No.

I think it's also interesting--you have the right to close--that the President's budget, for which there was no pushback by this other side of the aisle, zeroed it out. Ours didn't. We're just cutting it by $4 million, and it's a tough choice. We agree.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize our guest chaplain, my fellow Nebraskan and friend, Reverend Dr. Leroy E. Adams, Jr., who has served as the senior pastor of Omaha's

Morning Star Baptist Church since September of 1999.

Prior to serving in Omaha, Reverend Adams' ministry spanned more than a decade in Lawton, Oklahoma, and includes serving as a pastor in Stuttgart, Germany, for 2 years. Reverend Adams has earned his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees from the Andersonville Baptist Seminary, and he is a graduate of the Harvard Divinity School's Leadership Institute.

He has made his country a priority. He is an 8-year veteran, having served honorably in the United States Army. He has made our Omaha community a priority, particularly the more vulnerable citizens, our youth, and our seniors.

When youth violence arose in our community, it was Reverend Dr. Adams who reached out to other pastors in North Omaha to unify efforts and message against the violence in our neighborhoods. He has reached out to help our seniors who needed housing.

Reverend Adams is nationally known as a wonderful preacher, a great teacher, an irreplaceable pillar in our community, and a friend to many. He is blessed by his two children, Leroy and Maria, and Omaha is, in turn, blessed by this minister and his family.

May God continue to bless his life, his family, and his ministry for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, this bill is simple, but the ramifications may be significant. Let me set the record straight: I want to get off OPEC oil. Receiving as much as 700,000 barrels of oil from our northern neighbor, Canada, makes us more energy secure, more energy independent.

The application for this pipeline, an efficient way to move oil from one part to another part, the most efficient and safest, was filed almost 3 years ago. We are just a month shy of its 3-year anniversary; whereas, it is usually around 18 months to 24 months to have something like this approved.

Now, this bill sets a hard date of November 1, 2011, for the President to make a determination of national interest on this pipeline. Let me repeat: All we're asking is that the President make his decision by November 1. Enough time has passed.

Now, what we would see if this project moves forward: It will be a $13 billion construction project, privately funded; it will create at least 20,000 direct high-paying labor construction jobs; it will generate $6.5 billion in new personal income for U.S. workers and their families; it will spur more than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy; it will stimulate more than $585 million in new State and local taxes; it will deliver $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life span of this pipeline.

Now, we have heard from two speakers already about the environmental impacts. I come from Nebraska. I want to make sure that this pipeline is safe as it passes through an environmentally sensitive area called the Sand Hills and over the Ogallala Aquifer. There have been draft environmental impact statements. There have been supplements, and it has been shown that it can be done safely. This is the single-most studied pipeline in the history of the United States.

I believe it's in our national security interest. It's about the jobs, economy, and energy security.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge rejection of this gutting amendment. What this would do is basically say you can't build any pipelines in this general area.

I would like the gentleman from Vermont to know that there are many pipelines already running through this area, oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines; and also the other part that I would like to make regarding this amendment, this almost 2 feet high stack of materials is the draft environmental study, the supplemental environmental study, PHMSA's report. I can assure the gentleman that there is no other pipeline that has been studied to the point that this one has. It is as close to the best built pipeline as demanded by the agencies that have oversight. It has gone through a very thorough, thorough examination.

The owners of this pipeline, TransCanada, have already agreed to not only increasing the thickness of the pipeline, itself, but additional pump stations to be able to detect when there's a leak. The pipeline reform bill will be reported out of committees later; and they would have to adhere to all of those rules, including something that we're discussing that all leaks have to be able to be onsite repaired within 1 hour.

There's no way to design a perfect pipeline, but there are ways to make sure that if there is an issue, there's a rapid response, and that has been built in. Those are additional agreements. I'm vastly positive that, A, any leaks that would occur are going to be minimal and not hazardous to the Ogallala aquifer or to the Sand Hills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in closing, I want to allay the fears here. To sit there and say that this hasn't been studied, we have the environmental impact study; we have the supplemental. This has been studied. All the agencies are involved, including PHMSA. I'm sure they will make their recommendations based on sound science.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to join my friend in standing up for the truth and accuracy; so what I will do is read the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study.

Page 7: ``The WORLD and DOE Energy Technologies Perspective model analyses results show no significant change in total U.S. refining activity, total crude and product import volumes and costs, in global refinery CO2 and total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions whether Keystone XL is built or not.''

It's the exact verbiage from the actual Department of Energy using the EPA's modeling conclusions. So we're just using the Department of Energy study's own language that it's not increasing. So what this amendment does is takes out the exact language from an independent study by the Department of Energy and supplants it with an inaccurate statement.

Now, I think where my friend is going, and the EPA has recently written a letter saying, the standard they would like to see is not heavy crude versus heavy crude. Because what this study is saying is this oil is still going to be refined, whether it's in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, or Chicago. If it's not being refined there, it will be refined in China; therefore, it has the same impact globally, the same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, the EPA wrote a letter and said, Well, we're changing that standard. We would like you to just compare it to Texas sweet crude. And they just pulled that out of a hat here just a few months ago. So that's what he's saying, but it's not part of what the study says. So there is no reason to remove this.

This is accurate. It's exactly from the Department of Energy's study based on EPA's own modeling.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, once again, in the entire record that's been submitted from the Department of Energy to EPA, the studies that have been done conclude that, in global refineries, CO2 and total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, whether the Keystone XL is built or not, there is no additional CO2, no significant CO2. That is the exact language in here. To strike that would strike the truth that is set forth in the studies and supplant it with something that doesn't exist in all of the models and studies that have been provided.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the crux of this amendment is that the gentlelady from California is asking for another study. That seems to be kind of the new tactic of how to delay or kill a bill; let's do a study instead of implementing something.

I want to talk about the safety of the pipeline with the chemical bitumen, which helps the crude actually flow through the pipeline better. This chemical isn't new to the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Agency. In fact, heavy crude has been sent through pipelines with this chemical since the 1920s, including out of California. So they have the expertise to deal with this already. They are working on their assessment of the Keystone pipeline to assist the State Department and Department of Energy in their recommendation, so there is really no need for this type of a study.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I too have great confidence in PHMSA to be able to determine whether or not the chemical creates any issues. Bitumen has been around for 91 years with heavy crude, and so I just don't think there is a need for additional delays or studies.

Ms. Quarterman has already said she is undertaking the study, and that will be included in her recommendation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

THE CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.

Two points here: I think, number one, the gentlelady's amendment really helps define what the real issue here is. It isn't with, necessarily, the pipeline or its placement of the pipeline or a chemical that's in it. It's actually about whether we're going to continue to use oil. As we use more oil, it gets heavier.

As I mentioned earlier with the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois, the EPA is doing this switch where you don't compare a heavy crude or sour to the same, like what's been brought in by Venezuela. Now you have to compare it to a different type of sweeter crude or easier to refine crude.

The reality here--and that's the point that's made in the study itself, and the part that the gentlelady reads from, it is actually noting that we're using a heavier crude. So I just want to point out that that's kind of an unfair comparison. We have got to do heavy to heavy to determine if there's going to be an increase in greenhouse gasses.

There's no rushing or expediting. This has been sitting around for 3 years. So it's really time to get up and do something.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I still am in opposition because it doesn't really accurately reflect the statements within the EIS, the Environmental Impact Studies.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

There is no doubt that the facts are that, on the Keystone but not the Keystone XL, there have been 12 leaks, 12 leaks of as little as 5 gallons to 400 barrels from a recent one. Those were determined to be caused, not by the safety of the pipeline but by valves that were mal-manufactured, where there was a manufacturing problem, but within a 12-hour period, they were up and running again. Those have all been replaced. That's the type of response that we expect under our pipeline laws.

I think the issues here are better placed in our discussions of pipeline safety, on which both the Transportation Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee will begin working soon, so I just don't see the need for this type of an amendment, or fact-finding, to be put into this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the purpose of this pipeline is so that American citizens will have a reliable source of fuel made in America. That's the whole point of this. And there are companies that are expanding their refineries right now to be able to accept this crude.

Now, it's been stated that if we don't use it, then this is not going to be used because it's landlocked, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's only 800 miles from the point that the oil sands will be used to the Vancouver coast where it could be put on and would be put on tankers to be shipped to China.

Now, Enbridge is already in the promoting process for a pipeline that will link the Athabasca fields in northern Alberta to a terminal in Kitimat, British Colombia. It's 525,000 barrels per day. So the statement that it will be landlocked and never used is just simply flat wrong. That is not what the Canadians will do.

To say that it's going to be sent to our refineries in Oklahoma, Chicago, Texas, and Louisiana so it could be then refined and put on a tanker then to go south through the Panama Canal and through just makes no sense because we have the most stringent regulations in refining and on cleaning, or a clean process that adds a great deal more to the cost of refining, so it just makes no economic sense to do that. It would be much cheaper just to put a pipeline to the west coast of Canada, put it on tankers. It would be much cheaper to do that.

At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this onerous and job- killing amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to state that this is an infrastructure bill. This is a $13 billion project, $13 billion spent in the United States, employing United States workers.

On the surface, my friend from Illinois' amendment seems fairly innocuous, just delaying this decision by 61 days. The point that I would like to make is that we've just had it with the delays. This isn't rushing or expediting. This is only weeks away from the 3-year anniversary of the filing of the application when, in comparison to other transcontinental pipelines, the average is 18 to 24 months. So it's time that we act.

The date of November 1 was actually calculated by the time it would take the State Department, after they requested another round of town hall meetings, to have sufficient time to accomplish those. So there's just no reason to bump it back from this date, from November 1, 61 days to January 1.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I appreciate the thoughts of the gentlelady from Hawaii. Coming from Nebraska, where it's the Sand Hills and the sensitive area and the Ogallala aquifer, I want to make sure that the people in my State have the peace of mind and the confidence that the worst-case scenarios have already been modeled out and written into their plans. In fact, that's the whole premise of PHMSA. And so the analysis of a worst-case scenario spill is already part of the application. It's part of the environmental impact statement and the supplemental environmental impact statement.

Furthermore, it's demonstrated its response plan in the event of the worst-case discharge, that the pumps will be stopped in 9 minutes and the valves will shut in 3 minutes. So the worst-case scenarios are actually part of the record so that the entities that have to make the recommendation to the President already have that determination. Then they'll use those facts and figures and models to determine what to recommend to the President. Then the President can make that recommendation.

So I believe that this amendment is really superfluous and unnecessary.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give a degree of confidence that this scenario's already been set forth. This is the environmental study, pages 3-99: maximum spill volumes. It's already been modeled out. It's already been determined.

And just to provide further confidence, even the EPA, that wrote a letter a few months ago, did not say anything about the maximum spills and whether the responses were appropriate or not. Most of theirs was on greenhouse gases. So this issue is pretty well settled. The facts are there for those who will make the recommendations. I request defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Thank you.

Let me assure the gentleman from Georgia that part of the environmental impact study based on the EPA modeling inherently includes the impact of health around the communities. So I am confident that the Department of Energy and the Department of State will have the necessary health impact data to make the proper recommendation to the President, and the President will then be able to rely on those or review the data himself before issuing it. But to require an additional study on top of the ones that have already been done appears to me to just simply be an act of trying to slow the process down.

Let me remind the Chairman that we are on the third-year anniversary of this particular application, whereas ordinarily these types of transborder pipeline applications are resolved within 18 to 24 months. The owner, TransCanada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--they've agreed to all of the recommendations that have come forth from all of the draft environmental impact studies and supplemental, so I really do not want additional studies layered on additional studies layered on additional studies to slow this down.

This is a $13 billion construction project, not funded by the government, that will employ at least 20,000 union contractors and 100,000 to 200,000 employees to help build the refineries and to work the refineries in the United States. This is the jobs bill. This is getting people back to work. This is an infrastructure bill. Let's get this decision done. The data's available. It can be done by November 1. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I hold up the United States Department of State report here. A cooperating agency in the development of the report is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The actual study was done by the Department of Energy using the EPA standards and modeling, so I think that may be where the confusion is entering here. I didn't state that the EPA did the study. I've always said that the Department of Energy, using EPA's modeling and standards, did it, but the EPA was a partner in this and had made their recommendations on it. Again, what we're requesting is a redundant study being done, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to inform the Chair and the gentlelady from Texas that we think that her amendment reflects the thoughts of the American people, and we agree with it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I strongly oppose this amendment. This is a poison pill, especially the way that this amendment is worded.

Now, the reality here is when this infrastructure of the pipeline is completed to U.S. refineries that are expanding to be able to accept this additional crude from Canada, we will have a reliable supply of at least 700,000 barrels per day--not relying on the Middle East as the gentlelady from Texas just spoke about, wherein the Arab Spring provided great uncertainty of which speculators took advantage.

But the reality here for the U.S. markets is that we won't have to deal with that uncertainty if we continue to take steps like the Keystone XL pipeline. Once again, a reliable resource of 700,000 to 1.3 million barrels per day will only deflate prices at the pump.

That's what the American citizens want. They want stability and reduced prices at the pump. It is a bogus argument to say that this pipeline is going to lead to an increase at the pump. It just doesn't make sense.

Now, what I believe is a strained conclusion of a comment made by a TransCanada employee that they can actually charge more, well, the reality is heavy crude is heavily discounted when compared to a sweet or lighter crude that is easier and less costly to refine. So there is a discount in there. But if you have a pipeline that easily transports and eliminates a lot of the costs of transporting and you have reliability, that does slightly increase the value to those buyers of that crude in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and other parts of the Midwest.

So the reality is this heavy crude still will not rise to the price of a sweet crude. The reality is the reliability of this oil coming to U.S. refineries will lower the price at the pumps, and that's what we should be doing, besides all of the jobs that will be created from this pipeline: 20,000 direct jobs created from this pipeline, energy security, an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs created on top of the construction.

So we need to move. We need the decision made. The data is here. They have enough time for additional comments to be able to make the decision by November 1.

I urge defeat of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

American workers and American consumers will be better off. They will reap the advantages of a reliable source of energy, eliminating, or at least greatly reducing, the uncertainties that cause the gas price spikes at the pump. Let's defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues here to vote against this. This is, A, nonsensical and not even relevant here. Why? Well, maybe some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have confused a public works

project with this private infrastructure project.

Number one, private companies do not have any rights of eminent domain; they can't take people's lands. So this part about them exercising eminent domain is just not relevant here. They aren't doing this; they don't have the power.

The other part is equally as nonsensical. Listen, this is a $13 billion stimulus infrastructure bill.

This is what all of us have been asking for because it creates thousands of jobs, 20,000 direct union construction jobs. Now, the Laborers International Union of North America supports this bill. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States, the AFL-CIO International Union of Operating Engineers, the Pipeline Contractors Association. These are the people. It's the labor. It's the jobs that are going to be created here, and we're standing with the American people.

Now, this other argument that we have been debating ad nauseam throughout the afternoon about bringing in 700,000 to 1.2 million barrels per day from Canada that is somehow going to raise prices at the pump. I'm sorry, I went through some economics. I don't see how adding supply, adding American jobs, making a reliable source of energy, and eliminating uncertainty is going to drive up costs. It doesn't make sense.

Let's stand with the American people. Let's create 100,000 new jobs. Let's get America working. Let's get the prices down at the pump. Vote against this motion for reconsideration, and let's vote to put people back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 34: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following: