Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TERRY. I would like to join my friend in standing up for the truth and accuracy; so what I will do is read the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study. Page 7: ``The WORLD and DOE Energy Technologies Perspective model analyses results show no significant change in total U.S. refining activity, total crude and product import volumes and costs, in global refinery CO2 and total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions whether Keystone XL is built or not.'' It's the exact verbiage from the actual Department of Energy using the EPA's modeling conclusions. So we're just using the Department of Energy study's own language that it's not increasing. So what this amendment does is takes out the exact language from an independent study by the Department of Energy and supplants it with an inaccurate statement. Now, I think where my friend is going, and the EPA has recently written a letter saying, the standard they would like to see is not heavy crude versus heavy crude. Because what this study is saying is this oil is still going to be refined, whether it's in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, or Chicago. If it's not being refined there, it will be refined in China; therefore, it has the same impact globally, the same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Well, the EPA wrote a letter and said, Well, we're changing that standard. We would like you to just compare it to Texas sweet crude. And they just pulled that out of a hat here just a few months ago. So that's what he's saying, but it's not part of what the study says. So there is no reason to remove this. This is accurate. It's exactly from the Department of Energy's study based on EPA's own modeling. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I too have great confidence in PHMSA to be able to determine whether or not the chemical creates any issues. Bitumen has been around for 91 years with heavy crude, and so I just don't think there is a need for additional delays or studies. Ms. Quarterman has already said she is undertaking the study, and that will be included in her recommendation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, the crux of this amendment is that the gentlelady from California is asking for another study. That seems to be kind of the new tactic of how to delay or kill a bill; let's do a study instead of implementing something. I want to talk about the safety of the pipeline with the chemical bitumen, which helps the crude actually flow through the pipeline better. This chemical isn't new to the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Agency. In fact, heavy crude has been sent through pipelines with this chemical since the 1920s, including out of California. So they have the expertise to deal with this already. They are working on their assessment of the Keystone pipeline to assist the State Department and Department of Energy in their recommendation, so there is really no need for this type of a study. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Two points here: I think, number one, the gentlelady's amendment really helps define what the real issue here is. It isn't with, necessarily, the pipeline or its placement of the pipeline or a chemical that's in it. It's actually about whether we're going to continue to use oil. As we use more oil, it gets heavier. As I mentioned earlier with the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois, the EPA is doing this switch where you don't compare a heavy crude or sour to the same, like what's been brought in by Venezuela. Now you have to compare it to a different type of sweeter crude or easier to refine crude. The reality here--and that's the point that's made in the study itself, and the part that the gentlelady reads from, it is actually noting that we're using a heavier crude. So I just want to point out that that's kind of an unfair comparison. We have got to do heavy to heavy to determine if there's going to be an increase in greenhouse gasses. There's no rushing or expediting. This has been sitting around for 3 years. So it's really time to get up and do something. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TERRY. I still am in opposition because it doesn't really accurately reflect the statements within the EIS, the Environmental Impact Studies. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY. There is no doubt that the facts are that, on the Keystone but not the Keystone XL, there have been 12 leaks, 12 leaks of as little as 5 gallons to 400 barrels from a recent one. Those were determined to be caused, not by the safety of the pipeline but by valves that were mal-manufactured, where there was a manufacturing problem, but within a 12-hour period, they were up and running again. Those have all been replaced. That's the type of response that we expect under our pipeline laws. I think the issues here are better placed in our discussions of pipeline safety, on which both the Transportation Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee will begin working soon, so I just don't see the need for this type of an amendment, or fact-finding, to be put into this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the purpose of this pipeline is so that American citizens will have a reliable source of fuel made in America. That's the whole point of this. And there are companies that are expanding their refineries right now to be able to accept this crude. Now, it's been stated that if we don't use it, then this is not going to be used because it's landlocked, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's only 800 miles from the point that the oil sands will be used to the Vancouver coast where it could be put on and would be put on tankers to be shipped to China. Now, Enbridge is already in the promoting process for a pipeline that will link the Athabasca fields in northern Alberta to a terminal in Kitimat, British Colombia. It's 525,000 barrels per day. So the statement that it will be landlocked and never used is just simply flat wrong. That is not what the Canadians will do. To say that it's going to be sent to our refineries in Oklahoma, Chicago, Texas, and Louisiana so it could be then refined and put on a tanker then to go south through the Panama Canal and through just makes no sense because we have the most stringent regulations in refining and on cleaning, or a clean process that adds a great deal more to the cost of refining, so it just makes no economic sense to do that. It would be much cheaper just to put a pipeline to the west coast of Canada, put it on tankers. It would be much cheaper to do that. At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this onerous and job- killing amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I first want to state that this is an infrastructure bill. This is a $13 billion project, $13 billion spent in the United States, employing United States workers. On the surface, my friend from Illinois' amendment seems fairly innocuous, just delaying this decision by 61 days. The point that I would like to make is that we've just had it with the delays. This isn't rushing or expediting. This is only weeks away from the 3-year anniversary of the filing of the application when, in comparison to other transcontinental pipelines, the average is 18 to 24 months. So it's time that we act. The date of November 1 was actually calculated by the time it would take the State Department, after they requested another round of town hall meetings, to have sufficient time to accomplish those. So there's just no reason to bump it back from this date, from November 1, 61 days to January 1. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. TERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate the thoughts of the gentlelady from Hawaii. Coming from Nebraska, where it's the Sand Hills and the sensitive area and the Ogallala aquifer, I want to make sure that the people in my State have the peace of mind and the confidence that the worst-case scenarios have already been modeled out and written into their plans. In fact, that's the whole premise of PHMSA. And so the analysis of a worst-case scenario spill is already part of the application. It's part of the environmental impact statement and the supplemental environmental impact statement. Furthermore, it's demonstrated its response plan in the event of the worst-case discharge, that the pumps will be stopped in 9 minutes and the valves will shut in 3 minutes. So the worst-case scenarios are actually part of the record so that the entities that have to make the recommendation to the President already have that determination. Then they'll use those facts and figures and models to determine what to recommend to the President. Then the President can make that recommendation. So I believe that this amendment is really superfluous and unnecessary. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to give a degree of confidence that this scenario's already been set forth. This is the environmental study, pages 3-99: maximum spill volumes. It's already been modeled out. It's already been determined. And just to provide further confidence, even the EPA, that wrote a letter a few months ago, did not say anything about the maximum spills and whether the responses were appropriate or not. Most of theirs was on greenhouse gases. So this issue is pretty well settled. The facts are there for those who will make the recommendations. I request defeat of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. Let me assure the gentleman from Georgia that part of the environmental impact study based on the EPA modeling inherently includes the impact of health around the communities. So I am confident that the Department of Energy and the Department of State will have the necessary health impact data to make the proper recommendation to the President, and the President will then be able to rely on those or review the data himself before issuing it. But to require an additional study on top of the ones that have already been done appears to me to just simply be an act of trying to slow the process down. Let me remind the Chairman that we are on the third-year anniversary of this particular application, whereas ordinarily these types of transborder pipeline applications are resolved within 18 to 24 months. The owner, TransCanada--TransCanada is a Canadian company--they've agreed to all of the recommendations that have come forth from all of the draft environmental impact studies and supplemental, so I really do not want additional studies layered on additional studies layered on additional studies to slow this down. This is a $13 billion construction project, not funded by the government, that will employ at least 20,000 union contractors and 100,000 to 200,000 employees to help build the refineries and to work the refineries in the United States. This is the jobs bill. This is getting people back to work. This is an infrastructure bill. Let's get this decision done. The data's available. It can be done by November 1. I urge the defeat of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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