Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I submit that my friend, who just spoke on the other side, maybe was a victim of some poor staff work that took some liberties to revise and extend the real bill that we are debating here today because, frankly, the reforms here are fairly practical and necessary. What this really does is puts into the process of developing rules some simple changes that we think are reasonably necessary, keeping in mind that transparency is the key. So, for example, let's take the recent USF reform rule that came out. I have been active in USF, Mr. Chairman, for several years trying to get some of these reforms done through Congress. It was taken up through the FCC process. I was anxious to see the proposed rule and was very disappointed when it was basically a rough outline of what turned out to be then passed. Then several days later, or weeks later, the full order came out, 750 pages. Now, don't you think that if you are going to vote on a proposed rule that you would know what the rule says before you vote on it? It seems rather simple, and I would expect that people that are watching this debate would think that a bureaucracy issuing a proposed rule, that there would actually be a transcript of the rule. So we're just asking for simple things like that. And last, during this proposed rule, there's a time for comment. And at the end of the comment period this last time--and this is why a shot clock is really necessary--the FCC then dumped volumes of documents that it said it was going to use as evidence in this process, giving people 48 hours.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair, I support full repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The health reform law takes away power that has traditionally been left to Congress, and places health care decisions in the hands of an unelected, board of bureaucrats. Unfortunately, the House has decided to attach a bipartisan bill to repeal the IPAB, with legislation that is unconstitutional and I believe a federalization of our tort reform system. This is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 and a violation of the 10th Amendment. Tort law is an area of law traditionally left completely to states discretion. In fact, it's one of the few rights left to the states. Most states have implemented some form of medical liability laws. It is not the federal government's role to say that one state's laws are better than another's or even mandate one state's beliefs on another. Many of us believe the health reform law is a government takeover of our health care system. If one considers themself to be a true state's rights person, why do we give states the latitude and ability to do it, and then take it away with a one-size-fits all mandate from the federal government.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, this week is the Fourth Annual National Association of Chain Drug Stores RxIMPACT Day on Capitol Hill, where we recognize the pharmacy's contribution to the health care system. Hundreds of representatives from the pharmacy community--including practicing pharmacists, pharmacy school faculty and students, state pharmacy leaders, and pharmacy company executives--will visit Capitol Hill to share their views about the importance of supporting legislation that protects access to neighborhood pharmacies and utilizes pharmacists to improve the quality of care and reduce the cost of health care. Pharmacists are the nation's most accessible healthcare providers, and are important providers in communities across America. Pharmacists serve an important role in our health care system as they help improve quality and lower health care costs. For over a century, they have made a difference in the lives of my fellow citizens in Nebraska, as well as Americans throughout the nation. Pharmacists received specialized educational training that allows them to play a major role in our health care system. These important services include medication therapy management, disease state management, immunizations, and healthcare screenings. Pharmacists are also uniquely qualified to educate and help patients manage their medications, which is extremely important to helping keep our population healthy and control costs. On this day, I hope you will join me in celebrating the value of pharmacy and support efforts to protect access to neighborhood pharmacies.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. First, I want to mention to my friend from New Jersey that we have several bills, including that of the Keystone pipeline, sitting over in the Senate. They're bills that will create tens of thousands of jobs, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet it does not seem that Harry Reid would like to bring those to the floor, so we are doing our job here. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is about creating, really, a new environment for job creation in recognizing the human suffrage that has occurred in the Central Valley. I visited out there almost 2 years ago and saw the level of employment and the human impact of this Federal mandate upon California under the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. TERRY. I don't know about the court case where it really raised some serious issues regarding the credibility behind the rule, itself. What I do know is that, by passing this bill today, we basically push the restart button so that the entities that are hurt and the environmentalists can work together for an appropriate balanced rule that protects people's livelihoods as well. This should be a bipartisan bill. It came out of committee as a bipartisan bill. This is exactly the type of thing that we should be working together and across the aisle on, and I would encourage my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle to join with us in passing this bill.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise during Black History Month to remember the important contributions that African Americans have made to our nation--and to honor the extraordinary people who continue to help shape my community of Omaha. Today, I would like to pay special tribute to Thomas L. Harvey, one of the thousands of successful and talented African Americans in the Second Congressional District of Nebraska. Thomas Harvey always wanted to be a positive influence in children's lives. He first did so as a fifth grade elementary school teacher in Monroe, Louisiana; later, in addition to teaching, he took on school football and basketball coaching duties. An Omaha Public Schools Recruiter was encouraged by Teacher Corp's positive evaluation of Thomas, to convince Thomas that his work could be continued in Omaha, where an underserved youth community could truly benefit from his presence. Mr. Harvey moved to Omaha, and the rest is history. He went on to become the principal of Omaha North High's magnet school. After his time at the magnet school, Mr. Harvey served as a principal at the Omaha area's first magnet middle school, McMillan, and he later returned to North High to serve as the principal of its general student body. Under his guidance and direction, the magnet school programs at these schools quickly went from initial planning stages to implementation and success. These days, Harvey is well known for being a motivational educator who has contributed greatly to his schools' rise to excellence, as well as an inspirational leader in the community. During Mr. Harvey's tenure as principal of North High School, the school was cited for its excellent academic programs--in both Newsweek and Redbook magazines--and was featured as a premiere high school on numerous television shows, including NBC's Nightly News. Under Mr. Harvey's management, North High was deemed a Magnet School of Excellence in 1997, by the Magnet Schools of America. Mr. Harvey continues to promote excellence in education--currently serving as the Assistant Superintendent of Student and Community Services for Omaha Public Schools. In addition to his service to students, Mr. Harvey is active in several local, state, and national organizations. He is a board member of Magnet Schools of America, and Communities in Schools of Omaha. He also serves as a member of the Site Visitation Team for the U.S. Department of Secondary Education, and is a member of the Metropolitan Community College Advisory Committee. I am proud to recognize and honor this highly esteemed and dedicated educator for his four and a half decades of selfless service to the Omaha Community.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise during Black History Month--to acknowledge the important contributions that African- Americans have made, and continue to make to American society. Today, I honor some of the extraordinary citizens who have shaped Nebraska's Second District, and our great nation. Let's pay special tribute to Dr. and Mrs. Dick C.E. Davis, two highly respected and successful members of my community of Omaha. This couple has long been recognized as dedicated supporters of projects and causes that improve the lives of Nebraskans--particularly those hit hardest by poverty and the declining economic heft of our minority communities. Late last year, the couple celebrated the 40th anniversary of Davis Companies: a family business that has long been recognized as a pillar in Omaha's business community, recently being acknowledged as one of the ten fastest-growing Omaha businesses. Rather than resting on the success of Davis Companies, the Davis family has turned a laser-like focus to restoring a vibrant economic renaissance in Omaha's minority sectors. In 1989, the Davis family pioneered the State's first public/private funding allocated to addressing the underrepresentation of all minority students--in every sector of public post-secondary education. Since its inception, the Davis-Chambers scholarship fund has grown to a more than 3 million dollar endowment. It has fully funded undergraduate educations for more than 300 of Nebraska's ``best and brightest'' minority students. Dr. Davis also helped acquire and disperse more than $385 thousand dollars in grants--to test a groundbreaking entrepreneurship education program in Omaha's public schools. On the business front, the couple has spearheaded a private capital fund to provide seed money for minority-owned small businesses. The program identifies promising small businesses, coaches them through growth, provides initial start-up funds, and stands behind them as they grow into their own creditworthiness and financial maturity. More than 86 businesses have gone through the process, and in the initial run, reported a default rate of less than 3 percent--an excellent rate, considering that the national trend shows over half of these type of loans failing. These are just a sample of the myriad achievements and selfless actions in education, community service, and wealth-building endeavors that the couple has undertaken to leave an indelible mark on the economy and future of my hometown. I am proud to recognize and honor Dr. Dick C.E. Davis and Mrs. Charon Davis for their service to our community, and the nation.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, the language that we're discussing at this current time is allowing the Keystone pipeline a path forward. It's based on a bill I introduced back in September, which is H.R. 3548. Keep in mind that the President of the United States killed the Keystone pipeline. We think that was kowtowing to the environmental extremists, some of which may be in the House of Representatives, or represented here today. But the reality is that it was a wrong decision. It is in the best interests of our Nation to have the Keystone pipeline bringing oil from Alberta oil sands into the United States, where it can be refined and used in the United States, offsetting imported oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Keystone pipeline would take these supplies from Canada and use them in the United States, creating tens of thousands of jobs over a 2-year to 2\1/2\ year construction phase with permanent jobs thereafter to maintain the pipeline and its hubs along the 1,700-mile pipeline. Now, as far as the environmental objections to the project are concerned, I wish more people would have read the administration's own final environmental impact study. It found that not building the Keystone XL would lead to more oil being transported by riskier means, such as tankers, trains, and trucks. For this reason, the administration's folks concluded that the building of the pipeline is environmentally preferable to not building the pipeline and that its route was safe. Then the Nebraska Governor requested that, just for a little bit of Nebraska, that they do a 30- or 40-mile loop. The path was set, except for this little loop. Now, it would take a long time to dispel all the myths that have been perpetuated by the opponents in the environmental community. But it's worth noting that these are intrastate issues well on their way to being resolved and, in fact, were carved out in the previous bill mentioned by the gentleman from California, but the President ignored the Nebraska exemption giving Nebraska time to work through its change of route for about 40 or 50 miles of the 1,700. He never mentioned that and killed the pipeline. So we give a pathway forward to TransCanada to re-file its permit with all of the environmental documents that it has gathered over the last 3 years, presented to the administration last year, and give time to Nebraska to resolve their issue.

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

Mr. TERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is one of those myths that we must try to dispel. I guess if you say it enough times, some people will start believing it. But the reality is, why would you build a pipeline 1,700 miles, branching off to several refineries along the way, to our main refineries in Texas and Louisiana, simply to put it on a boat, send it through South America over to China, when they're already discussing, because the President denied this permit and set off a little bit of an international fury, sending a message to the rest of the world that we're going to kowtow to the environmental extremists as our energy policy in the United States, they are now talking about, or have been for some time, of just building a pipeline straight from the Alberta tar sands up here, all the way to Vancouver coast. Now, let me just read some of the article, since Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to China last week to court them to buy the oil that the United States just rejected when the President denied the Keystone XL permit. This is from an article from Ottawa.ctv, referring to the Prime Minister: He also made a subtle dig at environmentalists who helped block TransCanada's planned Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried Canada's oil to refineries in the United States. ``We uphold our responsibility to put the interests of Canadians ahead of foreign money and influence that seek to obstruct development in Canada in favor of energy imported from other, less stable parts of the world,'' he told the dinner. By the way, he was referring to Saudi Arabia, Middle East, and Venezuela where we're getting our oil now and will continue to do so unless this Keystone pipeline is built offsetting up to a million barrels per day. In Bloomberg on February 10, Harper said he is committed to ``profoundly'' diversifying the country's energy exports that will facilitate construction of new infrastructure needed to ship the country's oil to China. He's not talking about Keystone pipeline. He's talking about the new one along the west to Vancouver. The article continues: Canada, which holds the third largest oil reserves, is seeking to reduce its reliance on the United States after President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.'s $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast. ``We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy.'' That's why he went to China because obviously it's not the United States. Oil and Gas Journal states: Harper's visit was described as an open warning to Washington after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline. ``It's not a subtle warning. It's an open warning. Harper has said Keystone was a wake-up call,'' said Wenran Jiang, an energy expert at the University of Alberta. Now, next, Washington Post: Chinese state-controlled Sinopec has a stake in a proposed Canadian pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that would substantially boost Chinese investment in Alberta oil sands. From today, February 15, Kinder Morgan pipeline--this is from the Houston Business Journal--the chief of Port Metro Vancouver, the city's port authority, said the port would be willing to undertake the dredging and infrastructure work necessary to allow the bigger ships into the port that could carry crude shipped to the coast from Alberta oil sands. The reality is if you want this oil to go to China, kill the XL pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, and let this one be built in Canada, which Canada is already preparing to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. TERRY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment just defies logic in the sense that the refined product of gasoline is going to be used in the United States. Now, the fallacy of this amendment here is it says all of the refined products. Well, there's stuff that's left over after the process that we can't even use in the United States that's commonly exported today for decades. We actually don't use all of the diesel, and we trade with Europe to bring in more gasoline. So what this amendment is trying to do is, A, start a trade war because it violates all trade rules and regulations. But the reality is it's a misnomer. If you really want this oil to go to China and us to have to continue to import from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, then vote ``yes'' on this amendment because evidently you're more concerned about jobs in China than you are in the United States. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. None of us are smiling over the fact that the President killed the pipeline that would have created 20,000 jobs and that would have provided us a newer level of energy security. This amendment, in essence, is a way of killing this pipeline. Let's be clear about this. The pipeline is 1,700 miles, and through each State this proposed pipeline would pass, the pipeline company would negotiate with the landowners on the proposed routes. So, if you have one person who objects, then he can ostensibly kill the pipeline. In every State, there is a mechanism in its own State laws that resolves any disputes for a right-of-way. We've heard some language here about taking people's property. This is for use of a property and a right-of-way, a small strip of land, okay? So their rights are protected. The States' rights are protected. What this amendment would do is to strip the States of their rights here, and it would send them off to an unknown area that has no rights to resolve any disputes. They only need one landowner to kill a 1,700- mile project. The gentleman that the gentleman from Chicago mentioned is one of those people. He belongs to BOLD Nebraska, an organization of environmentalists that wants to kill the pipeline. At this point, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield so I can answer the question? The answer to that question would be that each State has set up a due process law----

Mr. TERRY. They don't take. * * *

Mr. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, why are many of us on the House floor tonight after regular business talking about the Keystone Pipeline? Because it's a win-win--20,000 immediate contracting support jobs for the construction of a 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada, down to our refineries in south Texas and then over to Louisiana. Beginning when this pipeline is finished, it will bring about 600,000, 700,000 barrels of oil to the United States from our good friend, Canada. Now, just to put that amount in perspective, $700,000, they expect that by the time it's fully operational it will be $1 million. To put it in context, today we are importing 900,000 barrels from Venezuela. We import 1.2 million from Saudi Arabia. So take it which way you want, but our friends from Canada, Alberta, just a few hundred miles north of our border, will produce enough oil to almost completely offset the heavy crude from Venezuela or Saudi Arabian oil. The reality, my friends, is that we have enough energy resources in the United States and Canada to be free of OPEC oil. Now, we talk about 20,000 direct jobs from a $7 billion project that is sitting waiting to go. They have their project labor agreement sitting. There are union folk ready to go to work. All it has to do is be approved, the permit for this, approved by the President. Once he says yes, 20,000 people go to work and we put ourselves on a path to greater energy security. That's one of the reasons why I fought so hard to get onto the Energy and Commerce Committee--to set us on a path to energy security where we don't have to send our money, U.S. consumers' dollars, to buy the energy necessary to propel our economy. But a funny thing happened on the road to energy security. The environmentalists said that this is heavy crude, and it is going to expel in the process too much CO2. They want to stop fossil fuels. So instead of using the most energy-efficient refineries in the world that would have the least emissions of CO2, I guess the environmental community would rather it go to China, where they have few pollution and carbon controls on their refineries. And by the way, China just bought half of the oil sands just a week ago; they'd be glad to buy the other half if we don't. So it's going to be refined. The President has until February 21 to say yes or no to this. That was by act of Congress, setting that deadline, because the original application was filed September of 2008, 3 years and 4 months ago. The average is 18 months for a transcontinental pipeline. This administration has been dragging its feet because they don't want to irritate the environmental community, which has been heightened now since we're into an election year. I wish we could have done this before we got into 2012, where it could be based on the merits and not the politics, but politics is what we're dealing with right now. The President said several times in the last few weeks that, geez, because Congress has forced my hand on making a decision before February 21, that's not enough time, so I may just have to deny it. Well, that's complete bull. Here's a document. I apologize to the gallery and maybe our C-SPAN viewers because the print is rather small, but this is an administration document from their agency dated July 25, Executive Office of the President, July 25. Let me read the important sentence here, the significant sentence in their document, the bill that we had then on July 25. They say it's unnecessary because the Department of State--who makes the recommendation to the President--has been working diligently to complete the permit decision process for the Keystone XL pipeline and has publicly committed to reaching a decision before December 31, 2011. Two other documents from the State Department have said that they have all the information they need, they're working diligently, and they will have the recommendation to the President by December 31, 2011, which of course they have not made. And the President says, geez, Congress, no reason for you to get involved because we're working diligently and we have all the information we need, and we will make a decision. Then, just prior to December 31, they're starting to say we want more information, or you're putting us in a box where we're going to have to say no. Bull. This is all politics. Stop playing politics, Mr. President, and put us on a road that we can be energy independent. And at a time of high unemployment, where these tradespeople are standing around waiting for work, put them back to work now, Mr. President. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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.)

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. 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.