Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for his leadership tonight. Before he leaves the Chamber and before I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, I think it's, again, important to talk about something that you mentioned in the very beginning of your comments. The only reason the State Department was involved is that it crossed the border. The only reason they were allowed to kill 100,000 American jobs is because it crossed the border. If the pipeline were built from Fargo, North Dakota, to Houston, Texas, would they have been involved?

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I will show a map. Mr. Conaway, the gentleman from Texas, referred to a pipeline. The only reason we had the Department of State involved is because it crosses a national boundary. So you can see the pipeline right here where it extends. I already have some pipelines, and I know the gentleman, Pete Olson from Texas, will be addressing the Chamber shortly and share even more about this route and the different pipelines that we're dealing with. But again, here it is. Right here. That's the only reason the State Department is involved. The only reason that they had a hook to get involved, and, as you can see, the hook was yanked and jobs were killed. I would like to follow up as well with an editorial from The Detroit News, The Detroit News on the 20th of January. Detroit, Michigan, particularly hard hit by economic tough times over the past several years. This is the editorial: President Barack Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait for 20,000 desperately needed jobs. For someone whose operating slogan is ``We can't wait,'' it's curious that President Obama is willing to wait and wait and wait for the Keystone XL pipeline project and the 20,000 desperately needed jobs it promises. If the ``can't wait'' President keeps dragging his feet, he will hand the Chinese yet one more competitive advantage over the United States. That's the Detroit News, January 20. Again, just a couple weeks ago. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) has been very involved in the Energy and Commerce Committee. He's been standing up for his State, energy security jobs that would be created. And I'm sure he knew this already, but in Texas alone, the development of the Alberta oil sands could create as many as 27,000 jobs over the next 4 years. With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New York and, again, thank you for your constant leadership on our national energy security. And we do harken back to the time just a few weeks ago when the President gave his State of the Union address, addressed this Chamber, the joint session of Congress. And it reminded me when he said, I'm for an all- of-the-above energy policy, and then vetoed, basically with the stroke of a pen, as you said, the Keystone pipeline. It reminded me of something that Yogi Berra might say. Yogi Berra might say, I'm for all- of-the-above energy as long as it's not all of the above. That seems to be what we're hearing. And with the killing, with one single signing, of 100,000 jobs, I think it shows where the real intent in terms of job creation some people would have this Chamber try to follow. You mentioned the Department of State. A week ago, last week, we had Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of State from the Department of State, testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee and admitted that when it comes to the EIS, the no-pipeline alternative, there was an alternative considered under the EIS, the Environmental Impact Statement. One of the options they considered was no pipeline, no pipeline at all. In testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, it was admitted that that was not the preferable alternative. That was not the preferable alternative under the Environmental Impact Statement. So even the Department of State admits that the EIS on the pipeline envisions the construction of a pipeline. And yet the President said no. And so I thank the gentleman from New York and the thousands of people that could be employed by the development of the Alberta oil sands. And I know the next gentleman, Mr. Conaway from Texas, that will be addressing the Chamber, I don't know if he has this statistic right in front of him, but according to testimony, again, before committee, 170 firms supply the Canadian oil sands from Texas, 170 firms that supply the Canadian old sands. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GARDNER. The gentleman from Arizona brings up a great point about Solyndra and the Keystone pipeline. And I think there is a real question about what kind of an economy we want in this country. Do we have a Solyndra economy that relies on government funding, government financing, and then rips off the American taxpayers? Or do we rely on a Keystone economy that creates private sector jobs, 100,000 private sector jobs? The Arizona Republic said in an article, an editorial that they wrote on January 20 of this year, just a couple days ago: A lack of urgency regarding energy independence is only one of the reasons President Obama is being shellacked this week by Republicans and Democrats alike for his disappointing decision regarding the Keystone XL transcontinental oil pipeline. The foot-dragging runs counter to the recommendations of the President's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. President Obama's choice is a bad one. He needs to reconsider. That was an editorial, again, from The Arizona Republic. And with that, I would yield to my colleague and good friend from the State of New York (Mr. Reed), somebody who has been very active in natural gas production and certainly a leader in the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. And I'm sure you'd be interested to know this--and I'm sure you already know this, in fact--that according to testimony that was given before the Energy and Commerce Committee hearing last year on energy issues, the impact of Alberta oil sands development on the U.S. State economy, in your great State of Ohio, 13,200 new jobs could be created between 2011 and 2015 as the development of the Alberta oil sands moves forward. And the Keystone pipeline is an important part of that. So, as I know there are many visits going on to Ohio by this President, perhaps he can explain to the people who may be unemployed in your district, 13,200 new jobs good to be created by the development of the Alberta oil sands, why the Keystone pipeline was vetoed. So I thank the gentleman for being here today. And with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona for his perspective.

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, the gentleman from South Carolina, getting to the passion which so many Members have tonight throughout this fight to create American jobs. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) who has also been a leader when it comes to energy security and American energy production.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentlelady for being here tonight and discussing the impact on her district with the Keystone pipeline. She brings up a good point when it comes to the price of gas. Reports that we have say that the discovery of the Canadian oil sands has the potential to change the current gas-price dynamic. Bringing a massive amount of oil to market from a politically and economically secure source can restore market confidence and bring down gas prices. With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Cleon Kimberling. Dr. Kimberling was recently honored by Colorado State University's Department of Animal Science as the livestock leader of the year. Dr. Kimberling is now 81 years old and has dedicated his life to improving livestock health. He received a degree in veterinary medicine from Colorado State in 1959 and since that time has made significant contributions to the veterinary science field. One of Dr. Kimberling's achievements includes developing tests that contributed to the eradication of brucellosis in the dairy industry. He has also successfully advocated for different nutrition standards for sheep, leading to an overall increase in the health of our sheep herds nationwide. His dedication to animal health started at a very young age when an outbreak of disease occurred on his farm. Since that point, he has dedicated a lifetime to veterinary medicine, stopping disease outbreaks and advocating prevention. Aside from his medical successes, he is also an avid cyclist. In fact, his business card states that he specializes in both sheep health and bicycling. At 65, Dr. Kimberling completed a bike trip from Oceanside, California, to Bar Harbor, Maine. This trip was over 3,500 miles long. His support for agriculture has helped many farmers and ranchers prevent disease and improve our livestock industry. These stories highlight an amazing man, and I am proud to honor Dr. Cleon Kimberling from the House floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Government, over 143,000 jobs in Colorado depend on our trade relationship with Canada. Further, crude petroleum is Colorado's top import from our neighbor to the north. And Colorado's not unique. Many of the jobs and energy around the country come as a result of our relationship with Canada. It's been 3 years since the application was filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create a pipeline that extends from the oil sands in Alberta to the gulf coast, bringing significant oil supplies into the United States. The United States as a whole, both economically and from a national security standpoint, will benefit immensely from the approval of this pipeline. In my mind, it's a very simple question: Why import oil from countries that seek to do us harm when we can get it from our neighbor to the north? I'm continuously awed at how much energy potential we have in North America and how simple it would be to advance policies that would make us more energy independent. Isn't that what we're trying to accomplish? But apparently there is an asterisk when it comes to job creation for this administration. Not these jobs, not these 100,000 jobs. Perhaps some others. This administration has done everything it can to stand in the way of a project that can help 100,000 Americans get back to work. Mr. President, don't put a cork in our economy. Let's get this pipeline built.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline. There are pipe dreams and pipelines out there that people talk about. Apparently, when it comes to jobs, maybe the pipeline is apparently a pipe dream. We have an opportunity, in this country, to secure our energy future with North American energy, to create American jobs on a project that is a 1,700-mile-long pipeline. You know, I hear all the time from constituents in Colorado about: Hey, what's the deal with this pipeline? Why can't we get forward moving creating jobs, American energy independence using North America's great resources to help our country create jobs and a more secure energy future? And the conversation then really revolves around commonsense ideas. Here's a President who, the President has said in the past that we need to support shovel-ready projects, that the stimulus bill that passed in 2009 was all about shovel-ready projects. And if you go back to last summer, I believe the President had said, well, I guess shovel- ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we thought it was. Well, here's a shovel-ready project. Here is a pipeline, a privately funded pipeline that's ready to be built, 1,700 miles, 20,000 American jobs. We could get started on that today. It's been years since this pipeline was actually first--the permit process first started, and yet here we are waiting once again. This isn't a surprise to anybody. It shouldn't shock anybody that the issue of the pipeline came up. The bill that we passed in December said you've got to make a decision. The President has said he would make a decision, and yet we still have no decision. I find it difficult to understand what is really the tough part of this decision. We can create jobs right now with a truly shovel-ready project. Earlier this year, back in February, actually, back in February of last year, we had testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee that talked about the development of the Alberta oil sands and what it would mean to jobs in the United States. Now, the Keystone pipeline is part of that. According to the testimony we received in that committee, between 2011 and 2015, 6,000 jobs could be created in Colorado, alone, because of the development of the Alberta oil sands. The Fourth Congressional District of Colorado that I represent has two counties. When you look at the true unemployment rates, the unemployment rates that take into account people who have just given up work--who've given up looking for work, who have just decided that they can't find work so they've stopped looking, two counties in my district have over 19 percent unemployment when you look at it through the lens of people who have stopped looking for work. A project like the Keystone pipeline, 20,000 direct jobs, 100,000 jobs indirectly created, development of the Alberta oil sands creating 6,000 jobs in Colorado over the next 3 years, next 4 years, these are good-paying American jobs with North American energy that we could be putting to the benefit of this country. We know there are willing partners out there. We know there are other people who have said: Go ahead, we'll take the business; we'll partner with you; we're not afraid. China has more than once said that this is something that they would look at. Canada has made it very clear that they won't just stop if we say no. Shovel-ready projects. Here it is, our opportunity to create American jobs. Three years ago the application was filed to build the pipeline. Most Americans at town meetings that I attend, they all know about this pipeline. They know where it's going. They know what's happening with it. It's been our goal in this 112th Congress to look out for the economy, to advance projects that make sense when it comes to American energy and North American energy and American job creation. That ought to be the goal of every single one of us in this Congress. Every action we take should be looked at through the same lens that we look at the Keystone pipeline--creating jobs. I'm continuously awed at the energy resources that we have in North America and how simple it would be to advance policies that would make us more energy independent, and yet we still can't move forward because no decision has been made. I'm baffled at how difficult this administration has made it when it comes to weaning ourselves off of overseas oil while at the same time creating more jobs right here at home. The administration has done everything it can to stand in the way of a project that can help Americans get back to work, a $7 billion private sector infrastructure project, when construction jobs around Colorado, around this country have been some of the hardest hit by the recession. This project provides a lifeline to thousands of construction workers seeking ways to get back on their feet. But the inaction of this administration has led us down a path of insecurity and dependence on other countries that have great animosity towards us. It's simply unacceptable. Not only do we have the resources in our own backyard in North America, but we have the ability to utilize friendly and willing neighbors like Canada to import that oil. Mr. Speaker, our unemployment rate as a Nation has hovered around 9 percent for far too long. There's no reason that the Federal Government should not be supporting a private sector solution done with private capital at a time like this. With rising gas prices, the threat of the Strait of Hormuz being blocked, and unemployment hovering so high, we simply cannot afford not to act. Mr. Speaker, the President has had plenty of time to make a decision. The studies have been submitted. The conversations have taken place. The debate has occurred. But what's winning this debate is the fact that the American people understand how many jobs would be created with the North American Energy Project. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and thank you for the opportunity tonight.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. So let's talk about real reform. Let's talk about real certainty that our economy needs. We've argued for $1,000 worth of tax relief to America's working families. You're talking about $160 of tax relief. You're willing to risk unemployment insurance, willing to risk a payroll tax increase because you're insisting on a $160 tax break when we're sitting here saying let's provide a $1,000 tax holiday? We can get our economy going again if we have the willingness to work with each other. And I would hope that after today there is willingness by our friends in the Senate to get the job done, to get our economy moving again, and to make sure that this country focuses on the real priorities: the men and women in this country looking for work, finding ways to make ends meet, and making sure that they're doing what's right for their families. I urge this body to do what's right--appoint conferees and get to doing the business of this country.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time. This argument seems a little bit confusing, I'm sure, to most people in America today. Several months ago House Republicans were accused of disagreeing with the President because, oh, gee, the idea was the President's, so we wanted to disagree with him. Well, here we are today agreeing with the President on a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday. Let me read a quote from what the President said: This Congress cannot and should not leave for vacation until they have made sure that the tax increase doesn't happen. Let me repeat that: Congress should not and cannot go on vacation before they have made sure that working families aren't seeing their taxes go up by $1,000 and those who are out there looking for work don't see their unemployment insurance expire. We passed a bill. The House bill that we passed with bipartisan support would provide $1,000 a year. I've heard it many times on the House floor as people come and say this is a $1,000 tax relief to the middle class. Not under your plan. The plan that the Democrats have put forward in the Senate, the plan put forward in the House by our Democratic colleagues would provide $160 worth of tax relief--$160 worth of tax relief is what they are fighting about today.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights serves to check the power of government and preserve the freedom of Americans. Our founding fathers realized that even well intentioned governments answerable to the will of the voters can grow to be tyrannical. They recognized that protections were needed to guard against government interference and so they enshrined those protections in the highest law of the land. The Bill of Rights is unique in that it is a document that outlines government power not by what the government can do but by what it CAN'T do. The spirit of our nation is in that distinction. We are a nation built on the idea that private individuals could create private industry with private interests and build a great society without an all knowing bureaucracy telling them how to do it. Times have changed since 1791. Our nation has grown, our government has grown, and today we inhabit a different world. There is no way that Madison and Jefferson and the rest of the founders who fought for a Bill of Rights could have envisioned the country we have become. Over the years we have fought many battles over the interpretation of these amendments and these principles have stood the test of time. The Bill of Rights is a fundamental feature of our country and a beacon to the rest of the world that freedom works, it is to be celebrated, and not repressed.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 150th anniversary of Boulder County, Colorado. Boulder County is one of 17 Colorado counties officially created in 1861 by the Territory Assembly. In the mid-1800s, settlers began flocking to Boulder County because of the robust and profitable mining sector. Local businesses were created to support the growing number of new miners to the area. The original founders of Boulder had more aspirations than to just be a simple Colorado mining town. Residents pushed strongly in the Territorial Assembly to have the State university located in the region. In 1877, 1 year after Colorado was admitted to the United States, the University of Colorado--the State's first university--opened its doors. From its early status as a college town and mining community, Boulder County has expanded, with a population now reaching over 300,000 people. The picturesque scenery and outdoor lifestyle has allowed this county to grow significantly over the past 150 years. Aside from the University of Colorado, Boulder County boasts an excellent technology sector, numerous small businesses, and countless microbreweries. One of my personal favorites is Oskar Blues Brewing Company in Longmont, Colorado. This region of Colorado continues to rate high in national polls for overall health and well-being, and is rated as one of the best places to raise a family in the country. Boulder County is the gateway to the Rocky Mountains. It's known for its tremendous outdoor recreation. From skiing, hiking, fishing, hunting, and biking--just to name a few--Boulder is an outdoorsman's town. It is my honor to recognize the 150th anniversary of Boulder County on the House floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for the time. We've all heard about the need to address jobs, to act on jobs, so here we are today to address the issue of job creation for so many in this country who are currently unemployed. Perhaps to some, the creation of jobs is just a pipe dream; but to many Republicans and Democrats, job creation is a Keystone pipeline. It's not a pipe dream. In Colorado alone, the Alberta oil sands could create as many as 6,000 jobs in the next 4 years, and the Keystone pipeline is an important part of that. We hear over and over again of the need to create jobs, of the need to address the issue of job creation. Yet here we are, hearing opposition to job creation. For every dollar we spend on oil from Saudi Arabia, 50 cents is returned to the U.S. economy. For every dollar spent on Canadian oil, 90 cents is returned to the domestic economy. It's because, in Canada's oil fields, American products are used en masse--Case loaders, Michelin tires, Wolverine boots, Ford trucks. The list goes on. This is not the way it is in countries thousands of miles away. I urge this Congress not to put politics before paychecks. Pass this bill.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for this amendment. It's ironic that the opposition to this amendment characterizes the amendment as a burden. However, the burden being placed, I would suggest, if it's a burden at all, is on the EPA, the EPA who actually has to take a look at whether or not this is impacting jobs before the regulation is promulgated. How about that? We actually do something around this place that takes a burden off the private sector and makes government do their job to make sure they're not hurting jobs in private industry. You know, this is an amendment that makes absolute common sense, to look before you leap, to make sure that you understand the impacts of a regulation before you issue it, and that's why I support this amendment.

Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman will recognize that State, local, and tribal governments will be able to enforce their own dust regulations according to local conditions. So I understand where you're coming from. I would just oppose this amendment. I believe that we need to get on to the underlying bill and adopt the underlying bill so that we can move forward, creating jobs, making sure that we're not killing jobs, and do what's right for this country when it comes to our economy. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GARDNER. Reclaiming my time, I understand there are some big concerns from Boston, there are concerns in Houston, and there are some concerns in Los Angeles; but, I can tell you in rural Colorado, in rural America, there are grave concerns that there are many people in this body that think their concerns over farm dust are nothing more than concerns over pixie dust. I would just close with this argument.

Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I would just like to continue with a list of overwhelming support from those in my district that believe this will, indeed, cost jobs. We've adopted an amendment that says hey, let's take a look at it before it goes into effect. The Colorado agriculture organizations, including the Colorado Association of Wheat Growers, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, the Colorado Corn Growers, the Colorado Lamb Council, the Colorado Livestock Association, the Colorado Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, the Colorado Sheep and Wool Authority, the Colorado Wool Growers Authority, and the Colorado Farm Bureau, these are organizations that will work each and every day under this regulation. And perhaps the EPA says hey, you know what, we're not going to do this right now, but they are very concerned.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman. The empirical evidence that I go on comes from the groups in Colorado that know this issue the best--the farmers and ranchers that I represent. Here's just a listing of a few of the organizations that support this bill as it stands.

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you very much for the time and consideration. Again, we did adopt an amendment that actually takes a look at the regulation before it's offered.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The question I have on that--I understand the confusion about jobs in the EPA. I think there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to whether or not the EPA is considering jobs in their analysis. The administration has issued an Executive order. We have actually, through the Energy and Commerce Committee, held a number of hearings on the Executive order that says, hey, you need to take a look at the impact on jobs when a regulation is promulgated. We have had testimony from various officials at the EPA talking about whether or not they look at jobs. There seems to be a great deal of confusion at the EPA about whether they actually care about jobs. But the problem is we ought to take a look at those jobs before the regulation is issued. That's exactly what the amendment did that we just passed by Mr. Schock. Addressing jobs, clearly, is not the expertise of the EPA. In fact, just ask assistant administrator Mathy Stanislaus, who came before our committee and testified that, indeed, when they issued a regulation, they didn't take a look at the jobs impact, even though about 30 seconds before in his statement he said that they did take a look at the impact on jobs. To the extent the EPA does comment on the jobs impact of its regulatory agenda, it has been widely criticized for understanding the potential for job losses, or for even making farfetched claims that the regulations create jobs. At one time we had a hearing with Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator of the EPA, who testified for every $1 million in regulations, it creates 1.5 jobs; 1.5 jobs for every $1 million in cost of a regulation. That's their idea of a job-creating idea or activity. State, local, and tribal governments will be able to enforce their own dust regulations in a way that makes sense for local conditions, including on jobs and the economy. We don't need to spend money on a study to know that avoiding overregulation will benefit the economy. Avoiding overregulation will benefit the economy. Regulations--1.5 jobs for every $1 million. That's the kind of math that my constituents, many constituents across this country, simply don't understand. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.