Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5625) to reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 5625, which was introduced by Representative Murphy of Connecticut. This legislation would provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with limited authority to reinstate two terminated hydroelectric licenses and transfer them to a new owner, the town of Canton, Connecticut. The licenses are associated with the Upper and Lower Collinsville dams on the Farmington River in Connecticut. Both projects are under one megawatt each, and I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, so at this time I would just thank the gentleman from Connecticut for bringing this legislation to our attention. I appreciate his patience. It took us a little while to get it to the floor, but I do urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4850) to allow for innovations and alternative technologies that meet or exceed desired energy efficiency goals.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Enabling Energy Saving Innovations Act, H.R. 4850, which was introduced by Representative Aderholt of Alabama. This bill fixes a problem with section 312 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 relating to newly manufactured walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. The legislation resolves a problem by providing the Secretary of Energy authority to waive certain component specifications of section 312, so long as the manufacturer demonstrates that that product meets or exceeds DOE energy-efficiency standards. I would urge all Members to support this commonsense piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4850 and H.R. 5625.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise today to support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act for a number of reasons. First of all, it would encourage more production of energy in the United States. Two, it would lower energy costs. Three, it would create additional jobs for the American people. And, four, just as important, it would keep America more competitive in the global marketplace. We live in a global economy, and our ability to have cheap, affordable, and abundant energy is absolutely necessary if we are going to compete with countries around the world. So that's what this legislation is designed to do. All of us have a responsibility to the environment, but we genuinely believe after hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing, people who create jobs come in and talk about the additional costs they're incurring because of this overly aggressive EPA, headed up by Administrator Lisa Jackson. I would also say that one portion of this bill is a very commonsense approach. While it would not immediately lower gasoline prices, it does ask the President to establish an interagency task force to examine the impact on jobs, prices, and competitiveness of three regulations that the EPA has initiated. They haven't finalized it, they haven't decided they are going to finalize it, but they have started the first steps. And so we ask this Agency to look at what is the impact on fuel prices with these regulations if they are adopted and to report back to Congress and to not finalize any of these rules until at least 6 months after they report back to Congress. It seems to me a commonsense approach. We have a responsibility to the American people to have some idea about the impact of these regulations on the economy.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise today to support Mr. McKinley's motion to instruct conferees to the highway transportation bill to stop the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous material. Since the formation of the EPA, the EPA has looked periodically at coal ash. Most recently, they did it in 1993 and 2000 under the Clinton administration and came to the conclusion that coal ash does not warrant being regulated as a hazardous waste. The only difference between today and then is that this administration is determined to put the coal business out of business, yet America gets about 48 percent of its electricity from coal. We cannot expect to meet the demands of this Nation's electricity needs over the next 20 years without coal. If the EPA is successful in treating coal ash as a hazardous waste, which is quite radical, we know that independent analyses have shown that the costs associated with road and bridge building in America will increase by more than $100 billion over a 20-year period. And in America today, to stimulate our economy, to get our goods to market, we need to improve the infrastructure of this country. At this time in our Nation's history, with the economic problems that we have, to try to increase the cost for construction to meet the vital needs of this country is really unconscionable, particularly when there's been no causal relationship found between coal ash and health problems.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a real advocate for the Keystone pipeline.

Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask who has the right to close?

Mr. WHITFIELD. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is one of the primary sponsors of the Keystone pipeline legislation, and the route of the pipeline will be going partially through his home State of Nebraska.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for introducing this motion to instruct as I think it is for the benefit of the American people. Yet, having said this in many hearings on this subject, I really am puzzled as to how people can be opposed to the Keystone pipeline. Many people have come up today who have been opposed to it, and they've talked about the necessity for jobs. The Keystone pipeline will create many jobs. As a matter of fact, we know that oil from the oil sands in Canada is already coming to America. There are over 1,000 American companies today supplying goods and services to Canadian oil sands and pipeline companies. Just to give you an example, with regard to Caterpillar, which makes the 797--the world's largest truck--the engines are made in Indiana; the cab is fabricated and installed in Illinois; the frame component is cast in Louisiana; and the Michelin tires are made in South Carolina. That's just one. I could go through here and list a multitude of companies from which jobs are being created because of the oil sands, and only more will be created if we can build this new pipeline. People say, Oh, you're going to export all this oil. Well, I genuinely believe that is a red herring. The Department of Energy, itself, did an analysis of this and said, if any oil were exported coming out of Canada, it would be a very minute amount. Yes, we do export some petroleum products now, but no one can honestly say--and no one has ever heard--that we intend to export the majority part of this oil, not even close to it. So I think that is a red herring. I might also say that there was a moratorium on the Transatlantic pipeline in Canada from exporting oil. We found out that, when that happened, oil production in America went down because companies decided, well, the prices are down, and we're not going to be able to export any. Then President Clinton lifted that moratorium. So I think the gentleman from Massachusetts, in making this argument of, ``Oh, we've got to prevent export'' is a red herring. There are a lot of pipelines already in America. On the average, they were studied for 18 months before they were approved. This pipeline has been studied for 40 months. I might also say that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has put together 57 additional safety measures for this pipeline that are not on other pipelines. This would be the safest pipeline built in America. So we have the ability here, if the President would simply approve it, of building a pipeline that will bring 830,000 more barrels of oil a day to America. I still believe in supply and demand. If supply goes up, prices go down, and I think that we all recognize that. Yet President Obama received a final environmental impact statement from the State Department. That environmental impact statement said, between the option of building this pipeline and not building this pipeline, the preference would be to build the pipeline. That's why we all were so shocked. It's because, after that, we thought the President would approve this pipeline. But what did he say? I don't want to make a decision until after the Presidential election. Now, I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but I'm assuming he was concerned about the environmental groups, and that's fine. Yet to deprive the American people of approximately 20,000 new jobs directly in building the pipeline, additional jobs like Caterpillar that would be selling more products to the Canadian companies where the oil sands are being produced--the oil is being produced in the oil sands--really makes no sense. This is a safe pipeline. It's 1,700 miles long. Only 60 miles of this pipeline route was suggested to be changed, which was in Nebraska, and the Governor of Nebraska and the legislature in Nebraska agreed with the change. They've basically signed off on this. So I am puzzled by why anybody would be opposed to it. More oil, more jobs, less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Yeah, we all would like to be less dependent on oil, but I tell you what, there are not enough electric cars in America to provide the necessary transportation that we need, despite the millions of dollars from President Obama's stimulus funds into the production of it. The reality is we need oil. We have an opportunity to do it here, to create jobs. I think the perfect place for this to be considered is in the transportation bill because we're talking about transporting oil for America to be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. I would urge everyone to support the gentleman from Georgia and his motion, and I urge everyone to vote in favor of it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our strong friendship and strategic alliance with the Republic of Turkey. Turkey has continuously stood with the United States in our efforts to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world. As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, Turkey has committed troops and necessary resources to efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through the years, and serves as a crucial transit point for supplies and personnel going to these countries. Additionally, Turkey announced last year that it would lead the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, regional command in Kabul for a third year. Turkey is also at the beginning operational stages of a NATO radar facility in its southeast region as part of a missile defense system intended to protect NATO allies from ballistic missiles. In addition to cooperation on NATO-led efforts, Turkey plays a critical role in promoting democracy throughout the region. Over the last year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has traveled throughout Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries affected by uprisings to encourage secular constitutions and democratic reforms that are vital to U.S. interests. Turkey has also taken a leading role in addressing the ongoing situation in Syria, opening its borders to tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and encouraging Arab countries to lead a coordinated effort to find a peaceful resolution in Syria. Turkey continues to increase efforts to support religious minorities in its own borders as well. Last August, Turkey issued a decree for the return of hundreds of properties, including cemeteries, hospitals, and schools, to non-Muslim communities. This announcement also provides compensation to the non-Muslim community foundations for properties currently registered to third parties. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton applauded Turkey's efforts to ``take serious steps to improve the climate for religious tolerance.'' Turkey remains a vital ally of the United States, and I am encouraged by the steps that Turkey has taken to improve its own commitment to democracy and to promote democracy throughout the Middle East. Turkey has earned our respect, gratitude, and recognition for its efforts over the last 60 years. I look forward to continuing to work in support of our mutual interests.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Girl Scouts Troop 333 from Madisonville, Kentucky on their selection as one of the 2012 Make A Difference Day honorees. Make A Difference Day is a celebration of the power of neighbors helping neighbors. Created by USA Weekend, this annual day of service mobilizes more than three million volunteers to create change in their community. Nine Junior and Cadet Girl Scouts of Madisonville Housing Authority Troop 333 dedicated a second Make A Difference Day to seniors. In 2010 the troop did chores for their older neighbors in public housing. This time around, they decided to bring cheer to nursing home residents. The girls decorated 450 greeting cards and wrote special messages for the seniors. They distributed the cards to residents in three assisted living homes and spent time visiting with each resident who received a card. I am pleased that Troop 333 will be honored for their efforts tonight during the Points of Light 2012 Make A Difference Day Awards Luncheon at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center here in Washington. Please join with me in celebrating their outstanding service.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I am delighted that, today, Father Gerald Baker, pastor of the St. Ann Catholic Church in Morganfield, Kentucky, gave our opening prayer. He has served as pastor in Morganfield since 2003. Prior to that, Father Baker was also the pastor in my hometown of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, where he was a wonderful community leader. Among other things, he started the St. Luke's Free Clinic in Hopkinsville. He received his Master of Divinity degree from Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 1983, and I might say that was the same year that our chaplain, Father Conroy, received his degree, also. He was ordained in 1983. We are also delighted to have the eighth-grade class of the St. Ann Catholic Church with us this morning from Morganfield, and they will be taking a tour of the Capitol. So, once again, I want to thank Father Baker for being with us today, for his leadership in our congressional district as well as in the State of Kentucky, and for the spiritual leadership he provides our citizens.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I might reiterate once again, this is a private company spending $7 billion of their own money. Before any of this ever became an issue, they acquired this material. They spent over $2 billion acquiring this material. Everybody is talking about jobs. One of the reasons they're offering this amendment is because of jobs. Well, there's nothing we can do about the material that's already been acquired. It's already purchased. So all we would do if we pass this amendment is we would make sure that the permit for this pipeline would not be issued. This material, all this $2 billion worth of steel, would be moved to Canada. They would build the pipeline to the west coast and move all of the oil to China, and they would get the construction jobs. So we would end up with no jobs. I know the gentleman's intentions are the very best, and we all are concerned about the issue, but there are no taxpayer dollars involved in this. It is a private company. They have already acquired this material. This never became an issue until, I suppose, about a month ago, and the material was even acquired at that point. So I would respectfully request that Members oppose this amendment. Let's build this pipeline and let's help America be less dependent on foreign oil, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 3 minutes. First of all, I would like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is a very hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership, that we reluctantly oppose his amendment. His amendment is very simple, and it is very direct. It simply says the permit will not be issued until the permit applicant certifies and provides adequate documentation that at least 75 percent of the iron and steel used in the construction of the pipeline is produced in North America, which is a goal that many of us have. I would like to point out a couple of facts here: Number one, this is a private company that's putting up $7 billion of its own money; Number two, in order to keep costs down, it has already acquired all of the steel and iron that it is going to use in this pipeline. Now, some people will say, well, why in the world would it spend over $2 billion buying this material when they didn't have a permit? Well, they filed this permit 40 months ago, and all of the information coming out from the Secretary of State, the Department of State in their final environmental impact statement would indicate that the pipeline was going to be approved. So they bought this material many months ago to try to keep costs down. And I will tell you, from the information that we have, 74 percent of the pipe was milled here in North America. In fact, it's milled in four different locations. Not all of them are in North America. The steel comes from seven different sources. Some of it from America and some of it not from America. But the reality is that, if we adopted this amendment, the permit would not be issued because the applicant cannot certify that 75 percent comes from America because it bought this material a long time ago. And, I might add, there's not one dime of taxpayer money in this project. So our feeling is that, the practical aspect is that, if you would basically stop the building of this pipeline, we would lose all those jobs, we would lose all the additional oil that we would be getting, and we believe that there would be more negatives from it than there would be positives. And one other comment that I would make is that the American Iron and Steel Institute, which represents many of the companies that Mr. Doyle is concerned about, is supporting our legislation. We have the letter that they support this legislation, and they support building the pipeline.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I do so reluctantly because we all have such great respect for Ms. Eshoo of California. She is a hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership. But we oppose this amendment for a couple of simple reasons. Number one, this study by the Department of Transportation is going to be made anyway. We're not stopping that at all. Number two, Keystone will transport a grade of crude oil that has been in our Nation's pipelines for decades. There's nothing really new about this substance. Venezuelan oil has about the same density. Certain Saudi Arabian oils have basically the same density. Studies by the Canadian Government and private sector engineers in this country have demonstrated that heavy oils and diluted bitumen are not more dangerous or corrosive than regular grades of oil. We have not found any evidence to the contrary of those studies. The reason that we're opposing this amendment is because this amendment would say you cannot begin this pipeline until this study is completed, and our position is we want this study to go forward. We've waited over 40 months to get the approval to build this pipeline. The American people need this pipeline. America needs this additional oil. If the study comes back and comes up with significant, or any, safety issues, I can assure you that Congress is ready to act to address those. But there's no indication that there will be a problem. So for that reason, we feel quite confident that this pipeline should be built. We want the study to go forward, but we want the permit to be issued to build it now, as the Department of State recognized in their final environmental statement back in August of 2011. I would urge the defeat of the Eshoo amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Five of the major labor unions in America support this legislation because they recognize the additional jobs that will be available to them in the construction of the pipeline. So for that reason, reluctantly, I oppose Mr. Doyle's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.