[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 193 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8994-H8999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      ENERGY SECURITY, AMERICAN JOBS, AND THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duffy). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  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. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss a project that is of utmost 
importance to the American people. As the gentleman from Nebraska just 
mentioned, it's called the Keystone XL pipeline. It is a proposal to 
extend an existing pipeline that starts in Canada, comes down through 
the Midwestern parts of the United States, into Oklahoma. The proposal 
is to extend that pipeline to the gulf coast of Texas and Louisiana.
  Why is this important to every American?
  Quite simply because we use lots of energy in America and because we 
do not produce as much as we use, so we have to import some of the 
energy. A lot of the energy we use comes from oil; and the Keystone XL 
pipeline, if built, would bring crude oil that starts up in Canada, 
down through the Midwest, to the gulf coast where we have about 50 
percent of the United States' refining capacity.
  This is a good deal because, number one, Canada is an ally. We are 
importing quite a bit of oil right now from Venezuela, which has a 
government dictator, Mr. Chavez, who is somewhat hostile to the United 
States. We are importing oil from the Middle East. While we have allies 
in the Middle East, that is an unstable region in terms of its 
political stability. So, if we could get more energy from North 
America, from Canada, that would be a good thing for us.
  In the construction phase, this pipeline will create--the gentleman 
from Nebraska would know the exact number--somewhere between 20,000 and 
30,000 jobs, I believe. Once in production, with all of the spinoffs, 
we think up to 100,000 jobs would be created here in the United States. 
It would make us more secure.
  When you just look at the facts of it, you have to ponder why anybody 
would be opposed to it.
  I am puzzled as to why some of my friends on the Democratic side of 
the aisle are opposed to it. The State Department, under the leadership 
of Hillary Clinton, endorsed the pipeline. They did an impact statement 
that said it was positive. At one point in time, it looked like it was 
going to get approval and move through. The environmental groups came 
to Washington last fall. They surrounded the White House, and protested 
against President Obama. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the President 
decided to delay a decision until after the election, which is why 
we're here today.
  In what we call the ``jobs bill'' that passed the House 2 days ago, 
there is a provision in it that requires a decision to be made on 
Keystone within 60 days, I believe, of the enactment of the bill if the 
President signs it. The President has said he would veto that bill, 
which shows that, while he said back in the fall that he wanted to 
delay a decision, apparently he opposes it. So he opposes jobs. He also 
opposes energy security for the United States, which is an odd 
platform, in my opinion, to run on in a Presidential election 
campaign--but it's a free country, and if the President wants to go 
down that trail, he has the right to do that.
  So I believe that Keystone is a good idea. In my congressional 
district down in Texas, there are numerous pipelines. There are oil 
pipelines, natural gas pipelines, gasoline refined product pipelines, 
water pipelines. We have never had any major problems with any of those 
pipelines from an environmental standpoint. The Keystone pipeline would 
be built using the absolute latest in technology and with the latest in 
safety, in inspections, in maintenance. I just cannot imagine why we 
would oppose it.
  So I am in strong support of it, and I want to thank Mr. Terry for 
his leadership on this issue. He has introduced bills. He has worked 
tirelessly in committee. He has worked tirelessly on the floor here. As 
I said, I hope that we get

[[Page H8995]]

this done, but I am in very strong support. I want to thank him for his 
leadership, and I also want to thank Congressman Carter for his 
leadership. He's here today, and he has worked very diligently on the 
Keystone pipeline, too.

                              {time}  1450

  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. CARTER. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding and for 
all of your hard work on this issue.
  This is an issue that is important to the United States of America. 
It's just that simple--that you don't have this kind of an opportunity 
in the economic environment that we have in this country very often. We 
have a country that has seen the worst unemployment, rampant 
unemployment and has had the most number of quarters with bad 
unemployment figures since the Great Depression. And here we have our 
Canadian neighbors to the north with this Keystone XL pipeline that is 
proposed to stretch 1,700 miles, cost $7 billion to construct over a 2-
year period, and create 100,000 or more jobs for America. And this is 
paid for. This is other people's money. We're not asking the Federal 
Government to spend more stimulus money on this energy project, as it 
did on the famous Solyndra project in California. We're asking it just 
to approve this pipeline.
  Now the reason I'm here to talk is because starting at age 16 until I 
graduated from law school, every summer of my life, I worked on 
pipelines. I was not the engineer. I was the guy with the shovel. I dug 
the ditches, and I cut the grass and operated the survey crew, and I 
gauged the gauges. And I did all of the various things that need to get 
done. I have done them in the State of Texas, in the State of 
Louisiana, and I was actually on a pipeline that stretched from 
northern Holland to Belgium in Europe. I worked there one summer. So I 
personally know the pipeline business from the bottom end. These are 
great jobs. Even the guy that wields the shovel has a great job, a 
great-paying job. That's why I did these jobs, to help pay my way 
through school. I found them to be very professional organizations, and 
I worked for five different companies. So I am known as, as they say, 
an old pipeliner.
  This project is a no-brainer. We created an Energy Department in this 
country during the Carter administration, I believe--and I could be 
corrected on that. Its purpose was to wean us off of Middle Eastern 
oil. Now our neighbors, our first cousins up in Canada, have found oil 
up there. They want to have us do the refining process for them. They 
have laid their part of the pipeline and the infrastructure in the 
north. And they're major participants in this pipeline coming south, to 
bring this crude down to the southern major refinery area in this 
country so that it can be refined into products that we use every day, 
products that we depend on every day.
  An estimated 100,000 jobs will be created by this pipeline. And you 
know, I'm not even sure they know how to estimate pipeline jobs because 
there is so much more that the American public wouldn't understand 
about the construction of a pipeline. There are going to be roads 
built. There are going to be fences built. Things that you never would 
even relate to the pipeline business are required to get the labor and 
the materials to the various locations on the construction of this 
pipeline. So every State this passes through in this country is going 
to be a State where they are going to benefit from good-paying jobs.
  These people that argue these are temporary jobs--this is a 2-year 
project, and these are the kinds of jobs that American folks, they pray 
for. These are the ones that the unemployed people of this country are 
on their knees every night asking to come to their town so they can 
have a good-paying job, a job that will support their family. And out 
of these construction projects can come other things that are related 
to the maintenance of the pipeline.
  This is a plus-plus-plus opportunity for American workers. Here we 
are at a time when the number one issue in the United States is putting 
Americans back to work. We have all this peripheral stuff. But it all 
comes back to that we don't get our country back on track until we put 
Americans back to work. And quite honestly, the attempts we've made in 
the past have not been very successful. This is a guaranteed successful 
job-creating project. We have track records to prove it. You can look 
back on the history of pipelines, and these construction programs have 
always been part of prosperity wherever they go.
  Now this is not a labor versus management issue. Five major labor 
unions have endorsed this project and have signed project labor 
agreements with the TransCanada Corporation. Over 20,000 construction 
jobs will directly be created to install the line. On top of that labor 
required to put this in the ground, tens of thousands of more jobs will 
be created as refineries expand both in Texas and in Louisiana to 
refine this. And out of the whole project, the estimate is clear that 
it is going to be 100,000 jobs or more.
  Now where's the downside? Environmental issues are being raised. And 
in talks about going through the great State of Nebraska--Mr. Terry's 
State--some people are opposing it for environmental reasons. But if 
you pulled out a map of the pipelines going east and west in this 
country, I haven't counted them, but I would say almost half of them 
pass through the State of Nebraska. They've been there for years, and 
they have never been an environmental problem to the State of Nebraska.
  If you look at the pipeline map of the State of Texas and Louisiana, 
it looks like a spider web of pipelines. You never hear of major 
pipeline disasters in our States. Pipelines are the safest and most 
economical way of transporting petroleum and other products.
  With unemployment just recently dropping below 9 percent for the 
first time in a long time--not much below, and we will probably go back 
above 9 percent as soon as the temporary holiday employment is over--
when we are sitting here with above 9 percent unemployment, why in the 
world wouldn't we want to join with our neighbors, our friends and 
those people who have been our friends forever, the Canadians, take the 
resource that they are properly capturing in their part of the world 
and are willing to share with us down here, to refine the products and 
build this pipeline and build prosperity right down the middle of the 
country. Where's the downside?
  Mr. Speaker, I join my friend Lee Terry of Nebraska in supporting the 
Keystone XL pipeline. It is a plus for America, and more importantly, 
it's a plus for the working men and women of this country. And it's 
another step towards energy independence in North America.
  With that, I thank my friend Lee Terry for allowing me to participate 
in this discussion.
  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.

                              {time}  1500

  That then would nearly offset what we have to buy from Saudi Arabia. 
We

[[Page H8996]]

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.

                              {time}  1510

  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

[[Page H8997]]

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. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Congressman Terry, and I just want to thank 
you so much for all you've done. I've seen you work in the committee to 
get this through the committee process. You've been tenacious, and I 
thank you. I thank you for getting this through the House floor, and 
now, getting it across the finish line, which is really what we need to 
do. And I thank you, along with the tens of thousands of people that 
want to thank you, as well, that will have a job.
  And that's what we're talking about here. Like you said, my friend, 
it's creating jobs. And we talk about creating jobs here in America, 
and politicians really don't do it, but we have a chance to do 
something. And these aren't government jobs. These aren't census takers 
or IRS agents. These are private-sector jobs. And so I thank you, 
Congressman Terry, for all you've done in creating those jobs.
  And another thing, too, that this does is it lessens our dependence 
on OPEC oil. Now I'm tired, along with many other people, of sending $1 
billion or more every single day to foreign countries to subsidize 
their economies and their nations at the expense of our own. And it's a 
national security issue, as well.
  But this Keystone Pipeline really creates jobs. Keystone is the 
largest infrastructure project ready for construction in the U.S., and 
it's privately funded, requiring no spending. The $7 billion pricetag 
will support jobs in the U.S. and create demand for U.S. products. 
Keystone Pipeline will create, as my friend said, 20,000 new jobs 
directly and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the coming years. 
More than 1,400 companies across the U.S. sell their products and 
services for oil sands work.

                              {time}  1520

  Keystone XL will lead to more economic activity.
  Canada is the United States' number one trading partner. In 2010, 
two-way trade in goods and services between the U.S. and Canada was 
more than $640 billion each day; $1.7 billion worth of goods and 
services traversed the U.S.-Canadian border.
  It will boost national security. Canada is the most reliable and 
secure oil supplier for Americans outside the U.S. The real foreign 
alternative to oil sands are from volatile nations like Venezuela. 
Keystone XL will encourage greater oil production in the Bakken areas 
of North Dakota and Montana. Trade with Canada complements an all-of-
the-above domestic energy strategy: more domestic oil, more alternative 
fuels, and more auto innovation.
  Global demand for oil will continue to increase dramatically, meaning 
that the oil sands will be produced. The question is whether Americans 
will directly benefit; or if the oil will be exported to Asia, 
primarily China.
  Canada is one of America's top allies in meeting security threats 
around the world. Oil sands production is a major economic engine for 
Canada, and the government supports Keystone XL.
  America's foreign policy must not be dictated by EPA, which opposes 
the Keystone XL pipeline. And like Congressman Lee Terry said, the 
Obama administration puts electoral politics ahead of national security 
interests by putting off a decision on Keystone XL until after the 
elections. That is crazy. The State Department conducted more than 3 
years of rigorous analysis and was widely expected to approve Keystone 
XL by the end of this year, before the White House came under 
environmentalist pressures.
  The Obama administration has put environmentalists ahead of American 
workers. As one example, Keystone XL is supported by several major 
unions--United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing 
and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. In Canada, International Union of 
Operating Engineers, Laborers' International Union of North America, 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, Building and Construction Trade Department, AFL-
CIO.
  Now, this is one of the best Christmas gifts we can give the American 
people by creating jobs, lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and 
stop sending $1 billion every single day to foreign countries.
  Again, I want to thank Congressman Lee Terry for all the work he has 
done on this.
  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. KINZINGER of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry). And listening to the words of the gentleman from Oklahoma, very 
well spoken.
  You know, I often ask what are the top issues, what are the top 
things Americans are concerned with right now? Obviously, number one is 
jobs. Number two is jobs and economy. I hear people talk a lot about 
energy in the 11th District of Illinois. So we have jobs, economy, 
energy, and I also hear some people talk about their concern with 
national defense.
  You know, amazingly to me, when you look at those issues of concern--
jobs, energy, national defense--there's one thing we can do which is 
going to address all of those concerns and it would address them now, 
and that is the Keystone pipeline.
  I actually sent a letter the other day, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague 
in Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin. He is the whip over in the Senate. 
And I asked him and I asked the Senate to just, you know what, let's 
just have an up-or-down vote, basically, on this Keystone

[[Page H8998]]

pipeline. Let's stop the parliamentary parlor tricks and the smoke and 
mirrors and just have a vote, ``yes'' or ``no,'' on the Keystone 
pipeline. You know, the interesting thing is they're not going to do it 
right now because they're afraid it might pass, because I think it 
would.

  The American people desperately need jobs. So let me ask you 
specifically, What does this mean for the Midwest? For the Midwest, 
we're talking about 20,000 construction jobs. We're talking for the 
country about 800,000 barrels of oil a day from our friends to the 
north. And that means less oil from places like the Middle East, 
Venezuela, Angola and Nigeria; and $5.2 billion in new property taxes 
to State and local governments that are basically bankrupt today. And 
how much does this cost the taxpayer? Any guess? The answer is zero. 
This is free. In fact, it saves the taxpayer a lot of money because 
ultimately fuel is going to be more secure.
  Middle class families are now on notice that the President and Harry 
Reid want to reject a payroll tax extension linked to job-creating, 
private sector construction projects. We passed a payroll tax cut 
extension just a couple of days ago in this House. We found a way to 
pay for it so that we're not robbing the Social Security fund. And we 
also were talking about the real job-creation opportunity that we have 
in the Keystone pipeline. And amazingly, the President said no, 
probably because he wants to assuage his base.
  But when you look at it, 18 to 24 months is what it takes, on 
average, to approve a project like this; that's 1\1/2\ years to 2 
years. That's a long time. This process is upwards of 39 months now, 
and the thing we hear from the administration is we need another year 
to make sure we do this correctly. I mean, are we in an era in this 
country where it takes 4 or 5 years, 10 years to approve projects? And 
then we wonder why we're not able to keep on the front lines of 
innovation and the front lines of energy production and security. This 
is an example of that.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I strongly believe in national security and the 
national defense of this country. And the best way we can do that is to 
have energy security here at home. Production of our own energy is 
great. We have to do that. That has to be the priority. But in the 
meantime, I'd sure rather have 800,000 barrels a day coming from Canada 
into here than having to import that much oil from places in the Middle 
East that don't like us. This makes sense.
  So we talked about getting people back to work. This is a shot in the 
arm right now; it's a shot in the arm today. This has bipartisan 
support. This isn't a Republican thing; this isn't a Democrat thing. 
Frankly, this is a bipartisan American jobs act, this Keystone 
pipeline, but politics has infected this process.
  So all I would ask is for Senator Durbin, in this letter I sent him, 
or Senator Harry Reid, please just bring the Keystone pipeline up for a 
vote. Let's extend the payroll tax cut and make sure that we're paying 
for it and not taking away from Social Security. These are all very 
good opportunities to get America back to work.
  With that, I want to say thank you to the gentleman from Nebraska for 
the opportunity to talk about this very important jobs-creation 
opportunity for the American people.
  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.
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Thank you, And I appreciate that. I'm not 
sure about phenom, but I'm very appreciative to be on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  We have a lot of issues in my district. For those of you who are 
watching this who aren't familiar with my district, I represent 
southwest Virginia. It is a big energy-producing region of the State of 
Virginia.
  And in Virginia, we understand that we should use our own resources 
to create jobs. So I come here today for jobs to be created in the 
United States--not in Virginia directly, but in another part of this 
great Nation, because the issues are often the same. And for some 
reason, this administration is standing in the way of the creation of 
jobs in the energy industry.
  In Virginia, we have asked repeatedly to be able to drill off our 
coast in order to find oil and natural gas. We want to use our 
resources to create jobs. We started asking for this in Virginia back 
in 2004. At that time we had Democrat Governors, and they blocked our 
efforts to send this to the Federal Government. Later, having a change 
of heart, one of the Governors decided, as they were on their way out 
the door, that they would send the request forward. But to this date 
the President has not realized that we can create jobs. But our jobs, 
unlike the jobs in Nebraska and other parts of the United States 
affected by Keystone, they would be several years down the road.

                              {time}  1530

  What we have here is the Nation's best shovel-ready project. In 
reality, it's ready to go. And while it's not American oil, it's 
Canadian oil. And one would have to believe that the Canadians don't 
care about their environment to be opposed to this pipeline.
  One would have to believe that the President of the United States 
would prefer to see the oil from Canada going to China. One would have 
to believe that the President of the United States would prefer for us 
to buy oil from other nations, like Venezuela and some of the Arab 
nations that don't care for us one iota, than to do this pipeline.
  One would have to believe that, for some reason, we want to be 
dependent, and this President wants us to be dependent on other nations 
who don't care for us, who don't appreciate our democratic, republican 
form of government, and who don't understand that jobs and the economy 
are a driving concern, something that we must pay attention to and that 
we must do it now.
  And here we have thousands of jobs, thousands of jobs. We've heard 
the number 20,000. Those are direct jobs. You can multiply that number 
out beyond and beyond. And they're being stopped.
  And if are you an energy producer and you see something that makes as 
much sense as the Keystone pipeline being stopped dead in its tracks 
because the President doesn't want to make a decision until next year, 
and maybe the next year after that, you have to believe that it's not 
worth investing here in the United States for energy concerns.
  I had a fellow came up to me recently back home. He said, Morgan, I 
want to tell you something. He showed me the article he'd found. He 
said, I've always invested in American energy. That's where I've always 
put my money. He said, But right now the situation is so uncertain--and 
this was before we knew the President was going to delay this very 
reasonable project, the Keystone pipeline. He said, I'm now investing 
in southern Africa with a consortium that has, I believe it was 
Australians, South Africans, and Brazilians working on a project in 
Mozambique. He said, I didn't want to do it, but I don't know what 
choice I have when you look at what is coming out of the 
administration, when they don't want us to invest in American energy.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell you, I came here today--this 
does not directly affect my district, but it does affect my country, 
and I care deeply about my country.
  Our country needs jobs. We need affordable energy. Keystone pipeline 
helps us both have jobs and affordable energy. And that is why it's 
important for every person in the United States to understand that we 
must have the Keystone pipeline; and the sooner we start, the sooner 
those jobs occur, and the sooner we get more oil supply that's not from 
our adversaries in the world, the people who would like to see the 
United States torn down, but from our friend Canada, who understands 
that together we can build a more prosperous North America.
  Ladies and gentlemen, with that, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Nebraska for yielding.
  Mr. TERRY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  I'd like to just take the last couple of minutes to close here.
  What we have is a $7 billion infrastructure project for the United 
States of America that will immediately employ 20,000 workers. It's a 
2-year-plus project. It will add--then, that's not even counting the 
spin-off jobs to support and to expand the refineries, the

[[Page H8999]]

permanent jobs that will be created there.
  So I ask the people that are watching here today and the American 
public to let Congress know, to let the President know that it's 
important to you that we create jobs in America. This project, when 
approved, would start the next day moving ground, employing people.
  Let's do that. Let's get America back to work. Let's help create 
American jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for 
yielding.
  Once again, President Obama has chosen to put politics over the 
American people by punting on the Keystone Pipeline decision until 
after his 2012 campaign.
  The construction of the pipeline will create thousands of good-paying 
jobs, spur economic growth, and help break our national dependence on 
foreign oil. This pipeline has received bipartisan support. It will 
increase America's access to safe and secure energy supplies and would 
bring more than 1.2 million barrels of oil into U.S. markets each day. 
Its construction could create tens of thousands of new jobs, many of 
which could be seen in North Dakota. In fact, Bakken Field crude oil is 
expected to account for 25 percent of the pipeline's expanded capacity.
  North Dakota is a national example of why we need a common sense, 
long-term energy plan. Our energy sector has created thousands of good, 
high-paying jobs. In fact, our state has the lowest unemployment in the 
nation. But this wasn't an accident. It was the result of common sense 
policy--a long-term energy plan called EMPOWER North Dakota that 
encouraged energy development, rather than putting up new regulatory 
barriers.
  But instead of looking to North Dakota for solutions that could help 
our economy, create good jobs, and help American become energy 
independent, the Obama administration continues to create new 
roadblocks to expanding domestic energy production.
  I strongly urge President Obama to look ahead for the next 
generation, not the next election, and expedite the approval of the 
Keystone expansion.

                          ____________________