Lee 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…”

“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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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.…”