Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Terry amendment requests that none of the funds made available by this act, including the funds made available for the Construction and Major Projects account, be used to increase funding for any major medical facility project that is under construction as of the date of enactment of this act. A major medical facility project, as defined by section 8104 of Title 38 in the U.S. Code, is a project that involves a total expenditure of more than $10 million. This includes the cost overruns of new VA hospitals. Take the new VA Hospital in New Orleans that was originally supposed to cost $625 million, but a new GAO report shows that the cost overruns at this particular facility is $370 million, pushing that to a near- billion-dollar hospital. The Navy Times recently reported about a GAO report that clearly illustrates this problem and should greatly disturb everyone. The Government Accountability Office found that the VA Hospital construction projects in Denver, Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Orlando are, on average, experiencing delays of 35 months and cost overruns of around $366 million. This comes out to about, with the expected costs and the overruns, almost a billion dollars per hospital. My amendment is designed to stop these cost overruns. In the Omaha metropolitan area, eastern Nebraska and western Iowa, there's about 112,000 underserved veterans in Omaha that are all too familiar with the cost overruns and delays associated with the building of VA hospitals. We have an almost 70-year-old facility in Omaha that is in dire need of replacement. The infrastructure's decrepit; it's rusting away. The HVAC system is so poor that we can't use many of the rooms. And then on top of that, our seven operating rooms have been shut down recently. Unfortunately, there's no telling when the VA is going to get to it. The veterans in Omaha are being told that there's no money left. This isn't just Omaha; this is occurring in California, Texas, and all over the world. This is unfair to the seniors to have this level of cost overruns and mismanagement. So that's the purpose and reason behind this amendment, to start making them focus on the bidding process, do it right, and not simply just have a bid and then make all the additions and changes afterwards that drive up the costs. And so I urge support for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Let's be honest: this permit is 5 years old. The average time for authorizing permits in these types of projects is 18 to 24 months. Enough paralysis by analysis. Now, some may say during this discussion that we're being impatient and we're rushing this through--1,700 days? This delay has taken longer than it took the Greatest Generation to win World War II on both fronts. It's longer than it took Lewis and Clark to do their exploration of the Louisiana Purchase to Oregon and back. The Keystone XL is a private infrastructure project with no government funds that will create nongovernment jobs--by the way, a $7 billion infrastructure project, 20,000 direct jobs along this route over a 2-year period. I want to make a very important point. Those who oppose this legislation argue that it's unprecedented. This is not the first time Congress has had to intervene to build a pipeline. Like-minded legislation to this one was necessary 40 years ago to achieve construction of the game-changing trans-Alaska pipeline. That legislation that was passed and signed into law deemed that the environmental studies--NEPA--were sufficient, as this one does; that rights of way across Federal lands--not State, but Federal lands--were processed; and judicial review was also included. Then again, in 2004, Congress had to act to pass legislation to build the Alaska natural gas pipeline. That legislation was passed and signed into law with a 60-day judicial review. The pipeline was deemed to be in the national interest and, unlike today, it expedited the NEPA. Here, the NEPA process has been finished--complete. The only way you can get more studies is to have amendments requiring more studies because all of the legal requirements have been filled. Today, we just heard about mistreatment. And there was some misinformation from the last speaker regarding what this bill does. It gives a streamlined judicial process in regard to the Federal permits issued. It has nothing to do with States' eminent domain. But let's hear some facts. Today, TransCanada has agreements with 60,000 landowners over 32,000 miles of pipeline. Under the original Keystone pipeline that goes through Nebraska, there were over 300 landowners involved in negotiations, four of whom objected. Three of those settled, one went to court; 300 versus four that were upset. And they got their day in court in the State of Nebraska, just like this bill preserves. If there are verifiable crop deficiencies, it's TransCanada's policy to make them whole. Now, what will compel the State Department to complete this process? They've had it for 5 years. The studies have been completed--the original NEPA, a supplemental, a Nebraska supplemental. Mr. Speaker, this is the most studied pipeline in the history of mankind. History is our greatest educator. In 1973, Congress passed and President Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act to ``ensure that because of the extensive governmental studies already made of this project and the national interest in early delivery of North Slope oil to domestic markets, the trans-Alaska pipeline be constructed promptly without further administrative or judicial delay or impediment.'' That was 40 years ago we had the same problems; 2004 we have the same problems. And it took Congress to act to resolve them. This will be the newest, most highly engineered pipeline in our history to resolve some of the questions from the gentleman from Colorado. Again, three separate environmental studies.

Mr. TERRY. The point of those is to study the impacts, if there is a spill, to not only the soil, the ecosystem, but the Ogallala Aquifer as well. Three different studies have dealt with that. All have scientifically concluded that there is negligible impact on the ecosystem, or in the artistic term ``not significant.'' The most celebrated geologist in the State of Nebraska has said that it is impossible for the oil to get to the Ogallala Aquifer; but if it did, the water is still and won't move out of that and can be easily remedied. Now, I'm not being impatient; the Republicans aren't being impatient. Our Nation of builders needs this pipeline, and I urge approval of both the rule and the bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support. Let me quote the President from his speech last week: ``Today, I'm directing agencies across the government to do what it takes to cut timelines for breaking ground on major infrastructure projects in half. And what that will mean is construction workers will get back on the jobs faster. It means more money going back into local economies. And it means more demand for outstanding dredging,'' the particular business that he was visiting that day. The President's right. But look at the Keystone project that he has purposely denied at one time, and now is delaying ad infinitum. So the nearly 1,705 days is more than double the time that the traditional transborder pipelines have taken. What this is is a $7 billion privately funded infrastructure project that puts, immediately, 20,000 workers, 2,000 of which come from my State of Nebraska, downstream. With the new expansion of refineries, that could go up to 118,000. You have to ask, when there's been two other times in history, two of them both supported by the Democrats, sponsored by the Democrats, that were doing the same thing that this bill is, this isn't breaking new ground. These were the Alaska natural gas pipeline and the transatlantic pipeline. Both are doing the same things that are here. So you have to ask the question, why, Mr. Chairman, has it taken 5 years to get to the point where all of the studies are done and completed, but yet they're still finding ways to delay? We know what it is. The agenda has been taken over by the left-wing extremists. The NRDC and the extreme environmental groups are dictating the delay here in the hopes of killing it. They have stated that their hope is to kill. That's their number one issue, to kill this pipeline, and then they're going to go after other things after this is done. So that's what the real agenda is here. So let's stop saying that this is just an extraordinary piece of legislation. This is modeled on past pieces of legislation where delays and bureaucratic morass has delayed them, and it's time, after almost 5 years, to get the Keystone pipeline working and the people working.

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

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

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

Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TERRY. We interpreted that requesting that information could be used as a tool to further delay it. That's how we've reached that conclusion. They've used so many things to delay this already that we're just suspicious that this would be another opportunity. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY. And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. I rise in opposition to the study. It requires another additional study around the refineries. Keep in mind that the refineries have already been through extensive research and studies to obtain their permits. Yes, many of the refineries are expanding right now, also under the tutelage and permitting processes of the EPA. They're already being studied. It's not necessary to then include it as a condition precedent to the construction of the Keystone pipeline, which is the essence of what this bill does. The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that the two entities that are encouraging this amendment are the two entities that have been at the forefront of causing most of these delays, so it's no surprise to me that the Sierra Club and the NRDC are throwing another tool out there to continue these delays. That's the whole purpose. After 1,700 days, almost 5 years, three major environmental studies on this pipeline, it's time to just get this done. Enough is enough. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that that was done for a different permit. The study that was done--that's referenced in there-- is the environmental study and the requested supplemental for the route, except for the State of Nebraska. There's another sentence in there that he didn't mention and that is in the now second supplemental for the State of Nebraska new review. There was an earlier statement that there was never one done under Nebraska. That's just absolutely false. The reality is we've done all of the environmental statements on this route for this permit that were required. So I want to make that clear. And the other point that I would like to make is the language that's taken in this bill about deeming it in the national interest and deeming the environmental studies--as they've been done for this route in total--have been done before, including the language taken out of a bill that the gentleman that's speaking right now supported in 2004.

Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

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

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

Mr. TERRY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. A couple of points just so we get the total picture here. We consume, in America, about 18 million barrels of oil per day. That's what we consume domestically. We've reduced that from 20 a couple of years ago. Now, currently, when we add or just focus on OPEC oil countries, we're importing, daily, about 4.3 million of that 18 million that we need from OPEC countries--Saudi Arabia, Venezuela--and so building this pipeline, about 800,000 barrels, is about enough to offset the heavy crude from Venezuela. Even with this pipeline running at its maximum, we will still need to import from OPEC-level countries. So the reality is that the numbers will dictate that we have a long way to go before we're flush in oil where we could be energy independent, not dependent on OPEC. That's one of our goals here in this legislation, is to be free of OPEC oil; keep it in North America. Now, he also mentioned, the gentleman from New Jersey, a good friend and classmate of mine, that a representative, high-level representative from TransCanada said no, we're not going to guarantee that it all won't be exported. Well, let's put it in context. There are people who are extracting the oil out of the ground. They contract with TransCanada to transport that to the customer that will have control over it and refine it. So the common carrier in the middle has no control over the contract between the producer and the refiner. That's why he said no. They have no say-so over what the refiner does. Now, the refiner, just basic common sense, is going to tell you that it economically is cheaper to refine the gasoline in Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, and then send out the gasoline product. And that gasoline's going to stay here domestically, maybe a small percentage. I don't know. But the reality is, economics is going to tell you that. But here's why this amendment has to be defeated, and this is why this is just kind of an absurd amendment because it says none of that oil that's put in a barrel could be exported. None of it. None of its byproducts either. So if you took the oil and made it into a plastic container of whatever you're exporting, you can't do that, because it's plastic made from something that came through TransCanada. The gentleman also mentioned diesel. Even at the highest level of our dependence on OPEC oil, because of our use of gasoline as our dominant source of transportation, as opposed to diesel, which is our symbiotic relationship with Europe, where they use diesel, not gasoline, we have exported that, so we can't even continue that level of relationship, that symbiotic relationship where they send us the gasoline they don't use and we send them the diesel. We can't do that. And as in every barrel, there will be lubricants, there will be gels, there will be other industrial uses that are exported all the time that we couldn't do here. But what the American consumer wants is the gasoline from that. And economics, marketplace pressures, are going to tell you it's just a lot cheaper to refine it here and then send it to their gas stations, and that's what the consumer wants. That's what's going to happen. Even the State Department said that was a fallacy that the gasoline was going to be exported. So this is one of those amendments that sounds populist and good. But when you think it through, it's just a measure to kill the pipeline. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Gomez on his last week as Director of Small Business Services at the Omaha Chamber of Commerce. After 36 years serving small business owners in Omaha, Larry will hang up his Chamber shoes on March 15th and replace them with golf shoes. A graduate of Bishop-Ryan High School in 1966 and of the University of Nebraska-Omaha in 1971, Larry spent his days as captain of the baseball team. When he wasn't busy with baseball, he earned a speech and communication/business degree from UNO. Upon graduating, he took a job with the City of Omaha in 1972 as the Chief Relocation Officer where he spearheaded the relocation of 52 businesses from the Central Park Mall. Since he joined the Omaha Chamber in 1976 he hasn't looked back. As Director of the Omaha Regional Minority Purchasing Council, he matched minority businesses with corporate buyers. In 1978, Larry was named Director of Small Business Council and Area Councils. Major milestones during his tenure with the Chamber include: Buy the Big O! Show, Omaha 25 Fastest Growing (now the Big O! Excellence Awards), Business on the Green, and the Area Council Golden Spike Awards. In the last five years, Larry has been an integral part of the membership team and member retention. Larry has been a tremendously valuable resource for my office. Whether it was setting up a group of business leaders to discuss cyber technology or the hurdles facing owners, Larry was always the first call. I am going to miss seeing him at the many ribbon cuttings we've attended together through the years. What I do look forward to, however, is seeing if he puts his band--Larry Gomez and the Brotherhood--back together again. So I rise today to thank him for his years of service and for his efforts to strengthen our city. May his drives be straight and his putts be few. I speak for all Omahans when I say we'll miss him and the energy he brought to the Chamber.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4212) to prevent the introduction into commerce of unsafe drywall, to ensure the manufacturer of drywall is readily identifiable, to ensure that problematic drywall removed from homes is not reused, and for other purposes.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 4212.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4212, an important bipartisan bill to help fight the problem of defective Chinese drywall which hit many families as a second plague when their home was destroyed by a hurricane or other disaster and then rebuilt using contaminated drywall from China. The House bill, which passed by voice vote last summer, attacks the problem in three ways: First, it directs the Secretary of Commerce to engage Chinese leaders and push for the manufacturers of the contaminated drywall to step up and take responsibility for the damages caused by their shoddy product; Second, the bill requires all drywall manufacturers in the future to label their product with their name and the date of manufacture. The lack of such basic identifying information was a major problem for the homeowners who were stuck with contaminated Chinese drywall but could not determine which manufacturer produced it; Third, and finally, the House bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to restrict elemental sulfur in drywall unless industry voluntarily adopts an acceptable limit first. Compliance with such a limit would be easy to check at the ports or elsewhere using simple handheld devices. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment before us today preserves all of these key aspects of the House bill, making only a few minor changes. Notably, the Senate amendment provides that the CPSC may only enforce a voluntary sulfur limit if it is adopted by a specified standard-setting body. This responds to a concern that the voluntary sulfur limit be a true consensus standard; that is, the product of an open process that allows for participation of industry and consumers alike. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment does not undercut the House-passed version of the bill, nor does it add any unnecessary government regulation. Therefore, I strongly urge the adoption of H.R. 4212. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell), who's the lead Republican sponsor. His dogged leadership on this is why it's back on the House floor again.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me make one very important point. Republicans and Democrats alike are united on this important health and safety issue. I urge all Members to pass this amendment today and get the needed consumer protections in place. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, due to mechanical difficulties, I was unable to make votes on Monday, December 17, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both H.R. 4604 and S. 3193.