Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. ``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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY. 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 EPA. This rule will add significant costs to the ability of small generators to generate electricity, which will force them to shut down without any path forward to replace that. In fact, they haven't even done a study on reliability to determine if electricity can be wheeled into the areas that the plants will have to shut down. In fact, there are two plants near my district in Nebraska: Grand Island and Fremont. Grand Island is saying that these rules of the EPA are fast and furious and without any cost benefit analysis will force the Grand Island plant to close. How will they get their electricity? They will have to find a creative way to do it; yet there's been no study on reliability. Secondly, in Fremont, Nebraska, they say what they'll do is just lower their plant level, just do a minimum amount of electricity. Where are they going to make that up? This is a directive. This is part of the radical environmentalist agenda being placed on America by one agency and one person, Lisa Jackson. We need to slow this down and take a hard look at it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. THE CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. 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.