Ed Whitfield

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. 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.

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. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which is known as the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act. This is primarily about the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone pipeline has been a topic of discussion in America for the last 3 or 4 years. When it came to the attention of Congress that this pipeline, which promises to create tens of thousands of jobs and increase our access to safe and secure supplies of oil, was experiencing an unreasonable level of delay, Congress decided that we needed to step in. We have, in Keystone pipeline, a company willing to invest $7 billion in private funds at no expense to the taxpayer. That would ultimately bring nearly a million barrels of oil per day from Canada to the U.S.-- additional oil per day. Even the President's Jobs Council agrees. Their report specifically suggested the pipeline is a win-win-win for job creation, modernizing the Nation's infrastructure, and helping ultimately to lower gasoline prices in America. I would also like to point out that five major labor unions support the building of the Keystone pipeline. A few years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in San Francisco giving a speech at the Commonwealth Club. In response to a question about Keystone pipeline, whether or not they would issue the permit to build it, Secretary of State Clinton said: We are inclined to do so. This project has now been studied for over 40 months by seven or eight agencies of the Federal Government. And normally, to build an oil pipeline in America, it takes on the average of 24 months. When the Department of State issued their final environmental impact statement back in August 2011, they concluded that there were not any significant environmental issues. And they also said that when they look at the option of either, one, building a pipeline, or, two, not building a pipeline, that the preferable option was to build the pipeline. And of course the rationale for that is that if you don't build the pipeline and you bring oil in from other countries, you either have to do it by truck or by rail, which certainly emits a lot into the atmosphere. But despite all of these positive reasons to build this pipeline, President Obama made a blatantly political decision when he said: I don't want to decide until after the Presidential election. And that's when Congress got involved and said we'd like a decision by February of 2012. And the President said: Well, I don't have enough time to study it, so I'm not going to allow it--even though it has been studied for 40 months. This is a 1,700-mile pipeline. The only issue left relates to about 60 miles in the State of Nebraska, and the Governor of Nebraska supports building this pipeline. So this is a win-win-win situation for the American people, and I would urge my fellow Members to support this legislation to require FERC to make a decision on this pipeline. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans to speak on the recent death of Rauf Denktas, former leader of the Turkish Cypriots. Mr. Denktas spent a great deal of his life advocating for a resolution to the separation between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Denktas witnessed the independence and divide of Cyprus, and went on to lead bilateral negotiations for a resolution to the Cyprus problem. For the Turkish and Greek people of Cyprus that have faced decades of turbulence, it is essential that a peaceful, unifying solution be found to this matter. I send my sincere condolences to Mr. Denktas' family, friends, and the Turkish Cypriot community, and I am hopeful that the international community will move forward toward a lasting settlement in Cyprus that will be agreeable for both the Greek and Turkish communities, reflective of the longtime efforts of Rauf Denktas.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I may make one other comment about Turkey. We all know that with the Arab Spring and the movement toward more free governments in the Middle East, that Prime Minister Erdogan has been one of the real leaders. He has spoken up against Syria. He has spoken up against Egypt. He has spoken against Tunisia and other countries and has been a real leader in trying to bring about a measure of freedom in that area. I might also say that the time period that has been discussed earlier, about the early 1900s, of course during World War I when a lot of these things took place, the Ottoman Empire was fighting for its existence at that time. There were a lot of atrocities that took place on both sides. But as I said, this resolution, there is certainly not anything in this resolution for anyone to oppose; but I think we should recognize that Turkey is making great strides, that they are returning properties, that they are taking a step, as has been pointed out by Secretary of State Clinton and by the religious watch organizations and others. Mr. Berman had requested that I yield some time, and I would be happy to yield time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would be happy to yield.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might also say that in order to ensure the future viability of the Orthodox Church, the appointment of non-Turkish citizen metropolitans to the Patriarchate's Holy Synod have been explicitly permitted in Turkey since 2004. Furthermore, in 2010, Turkey offered citizenship to metropolitans of foreign nationality who chose to apply. Additionally, issues regarding the residence permits of foreign clergy have been resolved. I might also point out that I had mentioned earlier that the directorate of religious affairs in Turkey had made available one of the religious scholars in Turkey to conduct a seminar at Wesley Theological Seminary. I would also mention to the body that the South Korean Methodist Church has been evangelizing in parts of Turkey, and they have a church in Antakya, which is one of the early Christian church sites that is located in Turkey, one of many, and they have been practicing their religion in Antakya. And so I would say that I don't want people to leave here with the impression that Turkey is deliberately out there trying to deny religious freedom, because that simply is not the case. Now, maybe they have a way to go; but as I've said, there is certainly nothing in this resolution that refers to anything about a genocide. This is simply talking about religious freedom. And I wanted to simply point out the steps that Turkey has been taking and continues to take. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. In conclusion, I would just say and reiterate once again that, in the 13th Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, the U.S. Department of State also underscored Turkey's recent efforts during the reporting period, the government took steps, important steps, to improve religious freedom. These positive statements have replaced the status of no change in the situation regarding the religious freedom in Turkey. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution and to claim time in opposition to the resolution.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. I might say that Turkey certainly has been a valuable ally of the United States for many years. As we all know, it is the only Muslim nation in NATO. It has been a vital partner to the United States in the war on terror in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. And just recently, Turkey agreed to host a NATO radar defense system directed toward Iran. Turkey also is becoming an increasingly important commercial partner. But I wanted to also point out, about 3 years ago, without any input from the U.S. Congress, the Secretary of State, or anyone else in the Federal Government, the director of religious affairs in Turkey on his own initiation had one of his religious scholars of the Muslim faith spend a semester at Wesley Theological Seminary here in Washington, D.C. During that semester, there was a dialogue between members of the Christian faith and members of the Muslim faith. And during that time, there was not any finger-pointing. There was no accusing the other side of being mean-spirited or anything else, but it was simply an exchange of ideas. That was at the initiative of the directorate of religious affairs in Turkey. I might also point out that in October, the archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox Church re-consecrated St. Giragos, an Armenian church near Lake Van in Turkey. That church has recently been renovated. I would also say that on November 11, 2010, Turkish authorities returned a former orphanage on Princess Island to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate following a decision by the European Court on Human Rights. On this occasion, the attorney representing the Patriarchate declared, ``This marks a first in Europe. Turkey became the first country to implement a decision of the ECHR by returning the property. This should be an example for other countries.'' So I think it's very clear that Turkey is moving in the right direction. They do not need to be condemned, in my view. They are a vital ally of the U.S. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have read H. Res. 306. Certainly, there is nothing in the language of this resolution that very many people would oppose. It basically says that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of State, in all official contacts with Turkish leaders and other Turkish officials, should emphasize that Turkey should end all forms of religious discrimination. It then goes on from there. Now, this resolution, in a way, reminds me of asking one, Do you still beat your children? Because whatever one answers, one is going to be condemned. So the mere fact that the resolution is being introduced would leave an objective observer with the opinion that religious freedom is being systematically denied in Turkey. Let's just look at a few of the facts. On September 13, 2011, during a briefing on the release of the U.S. Department of State's International Religious Freedom report, Secretary Clinton praised Turkey's recent steps in enhancing religious freedom. We've also seen Turkey take serious steps in improving the climate for religious tolerance. The Turkish Government issued a decree in August that invited non-Muslims to reclaim churches and synagogues that were confiscated 75 years ago. This was the language of Secretary Clinton: I applaud Prime Minister Erdogan's very important commitment to doing so. In its 13th annual Report on International Religious Freedom, the U.S. Department of State also underscored Turkey's recent efforts. During the reporting period, the government took steps to improve religious freedom. Notably, the government permitted religious services to be held annually at historic Christian sites that had been turned into State museums after decades of disuse. These positive statements have shown that Turkey has good intentions in pursuing religious freedom; and I might say that, last year, the Turkish Prime Minister issued a circular that emphasized the rights of all Turkish people, Muslim and non-Muslim, to enjoy their religious cultures and identities. Prime Minister Erdogan has urged all government institutions to act in accordance with this message. So I think it's quite clear that, while this resolution has no binding legal effect and while it has no authority over Turkey whatsoever, we can see that Turkey is taking specific steps to ensure religious freedom in its country and that it's doing so without any prodding from the U.S. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Massachusetts may view this as being about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell and fairy dust, but we have 197 organizations representing rural America that consider it a real problem. At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. McKinley.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I might say that during the debate on this bill in committee, a lot was made of mining activities in rural America, and I would just point out that there are 17 Federal laws that mining operations must abide by. So we didn't feel like we needed to provide additional protection in that area. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), one of the prime sponsors of this legislation and a protector of rural America.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. American farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses, like many other sectors of our economy, have faced an onslaught of EPA regulations. Now, we all support the environment, but our economy is struggling today, and every regulation adds additional cost. The Congressional Research Service recently reported that agriculture has been facing new Clean Air Act greenhouse gas standards; engine emission standards; national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulates; Clean Water Act permitting and other requirements; Superfund reporting requirements; and regulations for disclosure, permitting, and other regulatory requirements relating to the use of pesticides. And until recently, the dairy industry faced ambiguity about whether milk and milk containers would be subject to the EPA oil spill prevention regulations. We have 2.2 million farms in America employing 1.8 million people and providing 5 percent of this Nation's exports. We need to do everything possible to make it easy for them to do business and still protect the economy. Today we're going to consider H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011. At a time when rural economies are struggling, this bill provides certainty that farmers, ranchers, and other rural businesses will not be burdened with costly and unnecessary new dust regulations from Washington, D.C. As one might expect, a reasonable and commonsense measure like H.R. 1633 has garnered 120 bipartisan cosponsors. I would like to particularly thank and commend the efforts of Representative Kristi Noem, as well as Representative Leonard Boswell, Representative Robert Hurt, and Representative Larry Kissell for their tireless efforts on behalf of rural Americans and this bill. Our bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating so-called nuisance dust rests with State, local, and tribal governments. And the bill defines nuisance dust to include particulate matter generated primarily from natural sources, unpaved roads, earth moving, and other activities typically conducted in rural areas. In some ways, it's ludicrous we're sitting here debating about the EPA regulating dust. And I might say that we have 197 organizations supporting this legislation. Now, why do we need the bill? Well, EPA has been considering more costly, stringent PM10 standards. It is true that the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, recently announced that she would not propose new regulations, that she would retain the current PM10 standards. But the problem with that is, when they finalize a standard, it's uncertain whether EPA will finalize a standard that imposes greater costs to rural businesses. And we all know that many of the regulations and EPA environmental protections today are decided by the court system. So even though Lisa Jackson says she's not going to do anything, lawsuits can be filed requiring her to do certain things. So this legislation simply provides certainty. I might also say, because the science does not support the regulation of coarse rural dust, EPA itself proposed, in 2006, to exempt this dust from their national ambient air quality standards. And the integrated science assessment for particulate matter at EPA said, for long-term effects of coarse particles, there is next to no evidence in support of long-term health effects. I would urge all the Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.