Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2154, the Emergency Medical Services for Children Reauthorization Act of 2014. The Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program aims to reduce the number of deaths of children and adolescents due to severe illness or trauma. This program supports a number of grant programs to advance pediatric emergency care. It is the only federal program that specifically focuses on improving emergency services for children and adolescents. The House of Representatives approved legislation reauthorizing the EMSC program last week. The Senate bill before us today reauthorizes the program for another five years at the level of funding it received in fiscal year 2014. I want to commend the sponsors of this bill and of the House companion legislation--Senators Casey and Hatch and Congressmen Matheson and King--for their leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, and Ranking Member Pallone for their work on this legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander for their work in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I support S. 2154 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is bad for consumers. It is bad for small businesses. The only beneficiaries of this bill are the health insurance companies that want to sell bad policies, charge higher premiums for women, for children with preexisting conditions, and who want to put limits on health care coverage when people need it the most. I want to take a minute to go back to the time before the Affordable Care Act and remind my colleagues why we passed that health care reform in the first place. Before the ACA, consumers were seeing health insurance premiums rise by double-digits each year. Not anymore. This morning, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a new report on small employer premiums. The report found that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, premium increases for small business coverage have slowed considerably. This past year, premiums barely budged. Before the ACA, there was no requirement for how much of your premium dollars go to an insurance company, how much of that had to actually go for your health care. Your premiums could be used to pay for exorbitant executive salaries, lavish conferences, and other expenditures that had nothing to do with the health coverage for the insured. Now, consumers are saving billions of dollars from this new requirement that insurers actually spend premium dollars to provide health care. Before the ACA, parents could find that they had no coverage at all for a child's preexisting conditions, even something as common as asthma. Today, all parents are guaranteed the peace of mind that their insurance will cover their children's medical needs. Before the ACA, an individual struggling with cancer could find that the insurance plan would impose annual coverage limits and simply stop paying for care. Today, this is no longer the case. Before the ACA, small businesses had few choices and no leverage with insurance companies. The ACA put consumers and small businesses back in charge, and it did so in a way that is cutting health cost growth and providing coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans. So what do we have on the other side of the aisle from the Republicans? Sour grapes. We took a Republican idea, implemented by their very own Presidential candidate in Massachusetts, and we took that idea and made it work for the whole country, made it work for families, made it work better than even the most optimistic supporters had expected. And Republicans are mad. So rather than work to implement the law, they have been working to thwart it. Sour grapes. This bill is just another example of that mentality. It would not help small businesses. To the contrary. Small businesses that wish to grandfather and keep their old coverage already have that opportunity. This bill would let insurance companies sell non-ACA-compliant policies to any business, policies that do not protect against benefit limits, rate hikes, discrimination against women or against children with preexisting conditions. The bill would allow insurance companies to cherry-pick, offering low rates for inadequate, bare bones policies for some groups and then discriminate against, charging higher prices or offering weaker coverage for others. Mr. Speaker, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities yesterday released a new analysis of the bill and what it would mean. The analysis concluded that it would ``likely cause premiums to rise substantially for many small businesses and undercut health reform's small group market reforms and consumer protections.'' So I am opposed to this bill. It is not about helping businesses. It is not about helping families. This bill puts insurance companies back in charge, and it returns the insurance market to the days when they could discriminate with impunity. I am not for that, and I hope my colleagues are not for that. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my thoughts on H.R. 4701, the Tick-Borne Disease Research Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014. H.R. 4701 would create a new working group to review efforts on Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases within the Department of Health and Human Services. I support efforts to advance research and public input in this area, but I remain concerned that today's legislation is not the best way to advance these goals. Specifically, I have concerns that H.R. 4701 could unnecessarily politicize federal activities on Lyme disease and potentially result in recommendations that are not supported by a strong, scientific evidence base. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will take a careful look at H.R. 4701 and make changes to address these concerns before considering it further.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4290, the Wakefield Act of 2014. The Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program aims to reduce the number of deaths of children and adolescents due to severe illness or trauma. This program has funded grants to all fifty states, as well as to institutions of higher learning, to advance pediatric emergency care. It is the only federal program that specifically focuses on improving emergency care for children and adolescents. The EMSC program was first established in 1984 and last reauthorized in 2010. Today's legislation will once again reauthorize the EMSC program through 2019. I want to commend the sponsors of this legislation, Congressman Matheson and Congressman King, for their leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and all of our staff for their work in advancing this bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee and bringing it to the floor today. I support H.R. 4290 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 669, the Sudden Unexpected Death Data Enhancement and Awareness Act. Stillbirths--the loss of a pregnancy after 20 weeks of gestation-- occur for approximately 26,000 women in the United States each year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate there are 4,000 sudden unexplained infant deaths (SUID) in children under age one each year as well. Sudden Unexplained Deaths in Childhood (SUDC) occur in children over the age of 12 months, with an estimated incidence of 1.2 deaths per 100,000 children. CDC currently oversees a number of initiatives to collect data on these tragic deaths. H.R. 669 would help to improve surveillance on SUID, SUDC, and stillbirths. Improving data on the number and root causes of these unexplained deaths will be a critical step in advancing our efforts to reduce them. I want to commend the sponsors of this legislation, Ranking Member Pallone and Congressman King, for their leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, and all of our staff for helping to bring this bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee and to the floor today. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4067, reinstates a four month delay in the enforcement of the current Medicare rules relating to physician supervision of staff who administer certain therapeutic services in rural and critical access hospitals. The Medicare physician supervision requirement protects patients by ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries have access to someone capable of dealing with unforeseen emergencies. While I understand that rural healthcare providers often have difficulty acquiring adequate staffing, we should not place greater value on their convenience than on the safety of Medicare beneficiaries. Reinstating a delay of these requirements until the end of the year only potentially confuses healthcare providers and lowers the bar on patient safety that Medicare has put in place.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit the following letters into the record with regard to the debate on H.R. 4156. Consumer Federation of America July 18, 2014 Dear Representative: Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit association of consumer organizations around the country that represent the interests of millions of your constituents, urges you to reject HR. 4156, the Transparent Airline Act of 2014. This bill may be taken up on the suspension calendar, but at whatever point it is presented, we ask you to oppose it. There is nothing transparent, or pro-consumer, about this bill. It would allow airlines to advertise fares that do not include the mandatory taxes, hiding the true cost until consumers reach the end of the purchase process. This would make the cost of airline tickets appear artificially low and prevent budget-conscious consumers from determining upfront whether they can afford to fly and how the cost of doing so compares to other options, such as traveling to their destinations by train or car. The argument that consumers are entitled to know how much of the ticket price is comprised of taxes is totally disingenuous--that breakdown does show before consumers complete their purchases. Unlike charges for things such as checked baggage and extra legroom, however, taxes are not optional. Therefore, consumers do not base their air travel decisions on the amount of the taxes, which are standardized. Just as with buying gasoline, they shop for airline tickets based on the total cost including taxes. They are entitled to know that cost at the onset. Please stand with the traveling public in supporting real truth in airfares by rejecting H.R. 4156. Sincerely yours, Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 460, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Holt

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for H.R. 594, the Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research and Education (MD CARE) Amendments of 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health oversee a number of research, surveillance, and educational efforts involving muscular dystrophy. H.R. 594 will build upon the federal government's current activities regarding muscular dystrophy. Scientific advances have extended the lives of individuals living with forms of muscular dystrophy--like Duchenne. Today's legislation will help better incorporate the needs of adults with muscular dystrophy into current work in this area. Congressman Engel and Congressman Burgess should be recognized for their leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and all of our staff for their work in advancing this bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee. I support H.R. 594 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, when a company wants to export liquefied natural gas, LNG, it has to submit an application with the Department of Energy. For the export to countries with a free trade agreement with the U.S., the DOE must grant the applications without modification or delay. For the export to countries without a free trade agreement, the DOE has to approve an application, unless it finds that the proposed export will not be consistent with the public interest. To make this determination, the DOE evaluates a range of factors. It looks at the economic impacts, the international considerations, U.S. energy security, and environmental effects. Mr. Cassidy's amendment would prohibit the DOE from even considering one of the most important factors: the impact of LNG exports on climate change. I don't understand why we would do that. The world's leading scientists are unequivocal: climate change is already happening on all continents and across the oceans, and it is going to get much worse if we don't cut our emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases. So that would mean that we need to scrutinize the energy infrastructure decisions that we make today for their impact on climate change in the future. Every decision to build a new LNG export terminal has climate implications. We need to understand and weigh those effects. Now, whether exporting LNG will have a positive or a negative impact on global greenhouse gas emissions is a complex but a critical question. Natural gas consumption for electricity emits less carbon pollution than coal. So proponents of LNG exports argue these exports will displace coal consumption in these other countries, the way it is happening here in the United States, and that would produce a climate benefit; but other LNG exports will raise natural gas prices in the United States, which could increase the coal use here in the United States and carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. So, on the one hand, it helps; on the other hand, it might hurt. LNG exports would also drive new domestic natural gas production in the U.S. Now, that could increase emissions of methane--that is a potent greenhouse gas--unless we take measures to control that pollution at the wellhead and throughout the natural gas system. So, if we are going to live in a carbon-constrained world, we need to understand and consider the climate impacts of key energy policy decisions, such as building a new LNG export terminal and exporting America's natural gas. Mr. Cassidy's amendment takes a head-in-the-sand approach. DOE shouldn't even look at this. DOE shouldn't look at the lifecycle carbon emissions from LNG. This amendment says that DOE can't even consider those findings for any future studies of climate impacts when making a public interest determination. If you are going to have the consequences of climate change, shouldn't we know about it if we are going to say that a particular application is or is not in the public interest? Considering climate impacts is not going to slow down the review process. Nobody has made that argument. It makes no sense to require DOE to make a determination without the benefit of all the facts. Ignoring climate change will not make it go away. Quite the opposite. So I am urging my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is a shortsighted amendment. DOE has to make a determination in those cases where it is before them on what is the public interest. They have to look at the economic impacts. They have to look at international considerations. They have to look at U.S. energy security and environmental effects. Why should we say they should look at everything else but not be able to look at the environmental effect if it deals with climate change? It is a mystery to me why we would want to do something like this. Now, Mr. Cassidy made an argument that that is not within the jurisdiction of DOE. Well, we know DOE can look at energy security, but the economic impacts, they are going to have to look to other agencies of the government to help them with that one. The international considerations, they will probably want the State Department and others to help them with that one. So don't limit DOE and take away their jurisdiction as they make what is in the public interest, because it is in the public interest to look at all these considerations. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I oppose this rider, which would block the Department of Energy from implementing or enforcing commonsense energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs. This rider was a bad idea 3 years ago when it was first offered, and it is even more unsupportable today. Every claim made by proponents of this rider has been proven wrong. Mr. Burgess told us that the energy efficiency standards would ban incandescent lightbulbs. That has been simply false. You can go to the store today and see shelves of modern energy-efficient incandescent lightbulbs that meet the standard. They are the same as the old bulbs, except that they last longer, use less electricity, and save consumers money. We have heard for years that the energy efficiency standards restrict consumer choice. We even heard it again a minute ago. Well, if you have shopped for lightbulbs lately, you know this isn't true. Modern incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and LEDs of every shape, size, and color are now available. Consumers have never had more choice. The efficiency standards spurred innovation that dramatically expanded options for consumers. Critics of the efficiency standard claimed that they would cost consumers money. In fact, the opposite is true. When the standards are in full effect, the average American family will save about $100 every year. That is $13 billion in savings nationwide every year. But this rider threatens those savings. That is why the Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union oppose this anti-consumer amendment. Here is the reality: the 2007 consensus energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs were enacted with bipartisan support, and they continue to enjoy overwhelming industry support. U.S. manufacturers are already meeting the efficiency standards. The effect of this rider is to allow foreign manufacturers to sell old, inefficient lightbulbs in the United States that violate these efficiency standards. That is unfair to domestic manufacturers who have invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make efficient bulbs that meet the standards. That is following our law. Why on Earth would we want to pass a rider that favors foreign manufacturers who ignore our laws and penalizes U.S. manufacturers who are following our laws? But it gets even worse. The rider now poses an additional threat to U.S. manufacturing. The bipartisan 2007 energy bill required the Department of Energy to establish updated lightbulb efficiency standards by January 1, 2017. It also provided that if final updated standards are not issued by then, a more stringent standard of 45 lumens per watt automatically takes effect. Incandescent lightbulbs currently cannot meet this backstop standard. This rider blocks DOE from issuing the required efficiency standards and ensures that the backstop will kick in. Ironically, it is this rider that could effectively ban the incandescent lightbulb. The Burgess rider directly threatens existing lightbulb manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. It would stifle innovation and punish companies that have invested in domestic manufacturing. This rider aims to reverse years of technological progress only to kill jobs, increase electricity bills for our constituents, and worsen pollution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that this rider makes sense, despite the arguments we have heard from the proponent of this rider. It is time to choose common sense over rigid ideology. It is time to listen to the manufacturing companies, consumer groups, and efficiency advocates who all argue that this rider is harmful. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Burgess lightbulb rider, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, since before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, experts have been concerned about the vulnerability of chemical plants to attack. These facilities hold large stores of industrial chemicals which pose a safety and security risk to the American people if they are released or detonated. A recent report found that more than 134 million Americans live in the vulnerability zones around these chemical facilities. I have such a facility in my district, which is a very serious concern for the surrounding community. These risks have not been addressed adequately, and this bill falls short of what is needed. The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program at the Department of Homeland Security has not been successful. It was set up through an appropriations rider that did not give the Department the tools it needed to succeed. The original statute blocked effective enforcement, leading to a lack of compliance. We saw the dangers of noncompliance when the West Fertilizer Company facility in West, Texas, exploded. Unfortunately, those limitations on enforcement would be preserved by this bill. The original statute blocked the Department from requiring measures to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack and, in the process, created serious obstacles to disapproving site security plans that failed to meet the program's standards. This led to an approval process so complicated that it took more than 5 years for the Department to complete its review of the first facility. This bill preserves those obstacles. There have been significant issues with the background check requirements promulgated under the existing program, and this bill would preserve and codify some of those problems. The President should be commended for recognizing this program's deficiencies and taking strong action to address them, including issuing an executive order on chemical safety and security last year. The working group created by that executive order has looked at how best to secure these facilities with fresh eyes, and the administration is now moving to revise and improve the program. These reforms are important and necessary, but they are not reflected in this bill. Instead, this bill could limit the Department's ability to improve the program. That just doesn't make sense. In its current form, this bill is simply not adequate to provide real protections for the public. My view is that we should strengthen this bill before sending it to the Senate. If this bill passes today, we should work with the Senate to strengthen the bill and enact legislation we can all support.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for five public health bills before the House today. H.R. 1098, the Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act of 2014, extends surveillance and research activities for traumatic brain injuries (or TBI), as well as other programs for TBI services and supports overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services. I represent the nation's largest Veterans Affairs health facility--the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. TBI is one of many complex health problems affecting the veteran community served by this facility. I am pleased that we were able to include a provision in the bill that calls on HHS and the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report on their progress in coordinating TBI efforts for current and former members of the military. I also want to commend the sponsors of the legislation, Congressman Pascrell and Congressman Rooney, for their work on this issue. H.R. 1281, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014, extends newborn screening services and related activities for many conditions that are not otherwise apparent at birth and, if left untreated, can cause severe disability or even death. I want to thank the sponsors of this legislation, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard and Congressman Simpson, as well as the sponsors of the Senate companion bill, Senators Hagan and Hatch. The bill before the House today is the product of bipartisan and bicameral negotiations to assure House and Senate passage of this measure. I would also like to thank Senators Harkin and Alexander for their leadership on this measure in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. H.R. 4080, the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act, reauthorizes four grant programs that seek to improve access to trauma care services within states and in rural areas. Energy and Commerce Members, Congressmen Burgess and Green, are to be commended for their sponsorship of this legislation and leadership on trauma care issues. We are also considering another bill today related to trauma care: H.R. 3548, the Improving Trauma Care Act. This legislation expands the current definition of trauma for the purposes of trauma care grants to include burns and other injuries resulting from electrical, chemical, or other exposures. Congressman Johnson should be commended for his work on this issue. Finally, H.R. 4631, the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education, and Support Act of 2014, would extend autism spectrum disorder activities at the Department of Health and Human Services and ensure these efforts are better coordinated with activities across the federal government. The legislation before us reflects bipartisan and bicameral efforts to advance a bill that can pass both chambers well in advance of the September 30 sunset provisions that are in current law. I want to thank Congressmen Smith and Doyle, as well as Senators Menendez and Enzi, who sponsored the Senate companion bill. And again, I would like to thank Senators Harkin and Alexander for their work on this issue in the HELP Committee. All of these bills were worked out with Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pitts, and Mr. Upton. I appreciate their cooperation and contributions, and I am pleased to support all five of these bipartisan measures and urge my colleagues to do the same. Finally, I want to acknowledge the hard work of staff on both sides of the aisle, and to commend them for their work on these bills, I particularly want to recognize Anne Morris Reid, our lead public health staffer, who has moved on to a job in the Senate, but leaves the House with an impressive record of accomplishment.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Gardner, is proposing some changes in an effort to address some of the problems with his bill. The base bill would require the Department of Energy to make final decisions on almost all of the pending energy export applications in 90 days, without the benefit of complete environmental reviews. Now they look at their bill, and they appear to understand that this would be bad policy. The amendment would establish a different deadline. Now DOE must issue a final decision on an application within 30 days of completion of the NEPA environmental review. That is an improvement because it at least ensures that major LNG export projects are not approved without an environmental review. However, if this amendment is adopted, the bill will remain unnecessary and problematic. The bill is unnecessary because DOE already is approving huge volumes of LNG exports without any legislative action. They have proposed to further streamline their review at DOE so that it prioritizes review of the projects that have completed environmental reviews. That is already happening without this bill. So if we adopt this amendment, the bill will still be unnecessary because it truncates DOE's public interest review. We should give DOE the time it needs to weigh the pros and cons of granting an application. Instead, the bill sets a 30-day deadline that would rush that process. To me, that doesn't make sense, especially since rushing DOE isn't going to get LNG exported any faster. LNG can't be exported without a terminal, and nothing in this bill gets terminals permitted or built any faster. I am not going to oppose this amendment because it is probably better than the base bill, but it doesn't solve all of the problems with the bill. It illustrates how this bill, which is being touted as bringing about domestic prosperity and global freedom, is being worked on the go. I think it hasn't been thought through. This makes it a little better, but I don't see how the bill lives up to its title. I won't oppose the amendment, but I still think the bill is not worthy of passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Ambassador from Hungary and other countries that are looking at the possible aggression of the Russians are concerned about not having to rely on Russia alone for their natural gas supplies, and they are desperate. And we need to help them as best we can. But let's not fool anybody. Even if this bill were passed, it will probably not allow for us to get LNG to some of those countries until 2017, 2018. And if we allow the export of LNG, exporters here in the United States are going to send it primarily to those who will pay the highest prices. And they are not in Europe. They are in Asia. I wouldn't want the people to be under any illusions that this will help them immediately. I think the statement by that Ambassador shows more desperation than anything else and hope that we send a signal that we are going to do the best we can to get LNG to them as soon as possible, maybe they can withstand a possible Russian action. On the other hand, the Ambassador from Hungary knows that Hungary is part of NATO, and if Hungary is attacked by the Russians, we have an obligation to help them under our NATO agreement, so I think that is their base security, not this legislation. They have high hopes, especially when they hear that this is a bill that will bring about domestic prosperity to the United States. They would presumably like for us to have prosperity, and so would I, and it is called not only Domestic Prosperity, but Global Freedom, and they certainly are hoping that we will do what we can for global freedom. I certainly want to do everything we can for global freedom, and voting against this bill does not mean voting against global freedom.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would be happy to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face, so before approving a multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure project that will last for decades, we need to evaluate its climate impacts. That is the standard the President rightly set last June, but this test is a significant obstacle for tar sands pipelines because they would carry the dirtiest fuel on the planet. Over the last few years, House Republicans have repeatedly tried to short-circuit the process and mandate the approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The bill we are considering today goes even further. It creates a new process to rubberstamp every pending and future tar sands pipeline. The bill makes an end run around the National Environmental Policy Act. Under this bill, instead of conducting an environmental review of a whole pipeline that crosses the border with Canada or Mexico, the NEPA review, which is the environmental review, would be limited to just the small segment of pipeline crossing the border. That eliminates any meaningful Federal review of the environmental impacts of oil pipelines. For example, under this bill, the environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline would only examine the environmental impacts of that small piece of pipeline that crosses the border with Canada. The review could not look at the impacts on climate change of all of the other tar sands oil moved through the pipeline. It could not look at the impacts on the aquifers or landowners in Nebraska, for example, or at the public safety or oil spill concerns here in the United States. That dramatically narrowed scope of review is just another way to gut the Federal environmental review of tar sands pipelines. The bill doesn't stop there. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines are in the public interest, which tips the scale in favor of their approval. That is a subtle but significant change that makes it much more likely that these projects will go forward; and if the President rejects the Keystone XL or another pipeline because it is not in the national interest, which is a requirement in the law today, the bill would allow the rejected project to rise from the grave and reapply under the new, much weaker process. That is why I call this bill the ``zombie pipeline'' bill. In the northeastern part of the United States, another controversial pipeline project would carry tar sands oil from Canada through New Hampshire and Vermont to Portland, Maine, where it would be loaded onto tankers. That project wouldn't require any approval at all under this bill's new permitting process because the bill exempts major expansions of existing pipelines and reversals of pipeline flows from even that minimal process. The bill would also allow for unlimited exports of liquified natural gas through Canada and Mexico with absolutely no controls or conditions. That is why domestic manufacturers like Dow, Alcoa, and Nucor have criticized this bill. The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, citing the unreasonable 120-day deadline imposed by the bill, which would curtail the thorough consideration of issues involved with these projects, noting that the bill's provisions on natural gas exports would raise serious trade implications. The Statement of Administration Policy says that, if H.R. 3301 is presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. Faced with the threat of dangerous climate change, we have a responsibility to think through the impacts of proposed cross-border energy infrastructure projects. If Congress is going to establish a new permitting rule or rules through legislation, it should do so in a thoughtful and balanced way. Instead, this bill creates a process that rubberstamps projects and eliminates meaningful environmental review and public participation. This will undoubtedly benefit TransCanada and other multinational oil companies. It will undoubtedly help them, but it will harm the American people, whom we are here to represent. I oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. Even if you support the XL pipeline, this is a bad bill, and I would urge all Members to vote against this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mrs. Capps), who is a senior member of our committee and a very respected Member as well.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Tonko), our colleague who is an active leader in energy policy.