Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the comments of the gentleman from Kentucky, and I couldn't really follow a lot of it. After all, if the price of natural gas goes up, that would perhaps help the coal industry because the coal industry is not able to compete economically when the price of natural gas is low because if you are building a utility, you might as well buy natural gas because it is cheaper. Of course the coal people say, it is the government that is doing it. But it is the marketplace that is doing it. And the other comment that I found peculiar was, we don't need to have the National Environmental Policy Act evaluation because we have got the Endangered Species Act evaluation. Well, the Endangered Species Act is looking at endangered species. But what about the rest of the environmental review that would be eliminated if this bill were adopted, especially when we are talking about the impact on climate change and all of the other environmental considerations? So I must say that, while I came here with a clear view, I am reaffirmed in my view. The gentleman from Kentucky did not even come close to persuading me. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to say that the President has looked at this bill, and they just cited a number of concerns about it, and they very seldom come in with a Statement of Administration Policy, but they did say on this bill that they would be against it. They think that this bill raises serious trade implications by eliminating the current statutory requirement that the Department of Energy authorize orders for the natural gas exports. I don't think this bill is going anywhere because I think the Senate is unlikely to take it up. There are serious and urgent problems facing this Nation: unemployment, the need for immigration reform, climate change, gun violence in our children's schools, foreign policy challenges; but, once again, House Republicans are ignoring the real issues. Instead, they are wasting time on counterproductive legislation that has no prospect of enactment. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have better things to do. I would urge opposition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides, if it is a cross boundary with Canada or Mexico, you cannot have a NEPA review, an environmental review, except right around there, right around where the boundary is. Now, if you built a pipeline in the United States and it went a thousand miles, you would have a review of it. But they are saying just because it goes across the boundary for a thousand miles, let's say, there would be no review. Even though it crosses streams and aquifers, it would not get a real environmental review that would be required if it were solely domestic. That makes no sense. I urge support for the Pallone amendment because it fixes a problem and preserves meaningful environmental reviews. That is what we need for these projects. It corrects that part of the bill which I think is a glaring, glaring loophole.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill's supporters claim that it is just about the approval process for cross-border energy projects. They say it is not about approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because that is under review now. But, in fact, that is what this bill really does. If the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest, this bill would allow TransCanada to reapply under this new process designed to rubberstamp permits, and Keystone XL would almost certainly be approved under that process. This bill establishes a new permitting process which would ensure rapid approval, and not particularly a clear evaluation. The bill makes it very difficult for Federal agencies to do anything other than approve the proposed project for two reasons. First, the new permitting process narrows the approval and environmental review. And, secondly, the bill establishes this rebuttable presumption of approval, meaning the Federal agency must approve the project unless it finds that the cross-border segment of the project is not in the public interest. I think this bill, which I have called the ``Zombie Pipeline Act,'' is just for the Keystone XL pipeline. They keep on trying to push that thing and not let it go through the process by which it is still being evaluated. So I urge that we close this backdoor way to ensure Keystone XL itself is brought up again, and I would urge support for this amendment because this bill is not a proper way to deal with that particular project. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of the nice words, but let's recognize this amendment. We just heard the statement that this doesn't apply to the Keystone XL pipeline because that is pending, and the bill says it doesn't apply to any project with permit approval pending on the date of enactment. But that doesn't exclude them if they are denied from coming right back and getting rubberstamped under the easier process under this bill. So if this is not about the Keystone XL pipeline, adopt this amendment which says that the Keystone XL pipeline may not come back as a zombie for approval later if it doesn't get approved under the existing process. I am just trying to keep people honest. I still have got 6 months to do that, so don't say good-bye to me yet. While I am here, and even after I have left the Congress, I will continue to point out when things are said that just don't add up. It doesn't add up to say that this doesn't apply to the Keystone XL pipeline; it could, and in fact it is a backdoor way to do that. And one might suspect that that is the whole purpose of the legislation. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was going to talk about this bill, and I will, but I really want to talk about the inflation in the naming of these bills. This is a bill to allow a faster process for exporting natural gas to other countries. So what is it called? The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. What do you follow after that? Peace and prosperity in our time, whatever that may, in fact, involve. I just think this bill is overrated in its title. I also want to say it is overrated in what it does. There are 17 or 18 free trade countries, and they can have the export of natural gas to them right away. They are free trade countries that have an agreement with us. There is no problem in getting the approval for them. The question is: Are we going to approve export of natural gas to non-free trade countries? The premise of this bill is that we are not doing enough to export natural gas to them or anyone else, I guess. Congressman Gardner's bill would change the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, presumably because the Department of Energy is moving too slowly, because they can approve an application now for export anywhere around the world. In fact, DOE has moved--quite properly, it seems to me--to authorize these LNG exports. They have already approved seven export proposals, and they are continuing to evaluate additional applications. What these approvals that we have already granted--had granted--the U.S. is poised to transform into the world's second largest exporter of LNG in the world, just behind Qatar. If they approve one more application, we would go from exporting no LNG today to being the largest exporter in the world in just a few years. So why do we need this legislation? Certainly not to get domestic prosperity and global freedom because this bill doesn't accomplish either goal. Currently, the Department of Energy goes through a process, and they perform a public interest determination when reviewing export applications, so they can carefully consider the effect of LNG exports on natural gas prices here and the impact of higher prices here on American consumers and these manufacturers that are benefiting from the lower price that they have seen for LNG here. The public interest determination provides DOE an opportunity to examine a number of factors: energy security, geopolitical, and environmental considerations. If we would have this bill adopted, it would short circuit this established review process for pending and future LNG export applications. The bill establishes a new deadline for DOE to decide on applications within 90 days of the close of the public comment period or enactment of the bill, whichever comes later. That is a deadline that is established, so they are forcing the DOE to act, but if DOE looks at an application and they don't feel that they are ready to make a decision in that period of time, they are more likely than not to just turn it down. That doesn't seem to be a worthwhile goal, if we want to have more export of LNG. This provision would require DOE simultaneously to review and make a decision on all the pending applications within 90 days. It is not realistic, and it certainly isn't responsible. With few exceptions, environmental reviews haven't been completed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for any of these applications, so the deadline would force DOE to rush its review of each application and make its final decision without a final environmental review. The other thing I want to comment on is all those ambassadors that told us they want this bill--because of the hold that Russia has over them--they might not even benefit if this bill were adopted because they are not free trade countries. So there has to be an approval of an export for LNG to a non-free trade country. There is not an approval through the Department of Energy to any particular country. It simply approves the request of a company here to export the LNG. Under our capitalist system, a business usually seeks the highest reward for its investment. The export of LNG to a non-free trade country is going to be better rewarded in Asia than it will be in Ukraine or in Eastern Europe, where they are so concerned, rightfully so, about what Russia is going to do. It may not even help those countries, as so many of these ambassadors hoped it will. I would say that this bill is not going to get us to export LNG any faster. Nothing in the bill affects the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's permitting of the actual LNG export terminals. Rushing the DOE review is not going to speed up the construction of these projects. We need the construction of the infrastructure for the export of natural gas. The last thing I want to say is there are some controversies about exporting LNG, not exporting it at all, but opening it up to export in a process where the export will be wide open. A lot of manufacturers in this country are worried that, if we are exporting our LNG, that is going to raise the price of natural gas here at home. Well, of course it will. It will go to a lower price of LNG here at home to eventually a world price, if it could be freely exported around the world the way we have for oil. If that happens, they are afraid that this boom we have seen in manufacturing in the United States may be curtailed. So it is not without controversy that people are looking at this legislation. In other words, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, if you lose your job because the price of natural gas goes up and you are working for a manufacturer that is benefiting from a lower price for natural gas here in the United States, they are not going to look at this as a bill that leads to domestic prosperity and global freedom, as the authors of this bill would have us believe. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, I respect him greatly, and he made an argument. I don't fully agree with his argument, but that is the purpose of the debate, to discuss ideas and air our point of view. The author of this legislation, I guess, couldn't help himself because he said: imagine the consternation when they found that the Affordable Care Act was named the Affordable Care Act. There are millions of people around the country, for the first time, who are able to buy insurance that is affordable. I don't believe, if this bill passed, that it would lead to domestic prosperity and global freedom. With all due respect to those who have a different point of view, what gall to say that this bill, which is controversial, and many Americans oppose because they feel it will hurt their prosperity here at home or our national security here at home, would think that an appropriate name is to say this bill is the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Now that I have got that off my chest, Mr. Chairman, I want to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. You don't think the bill is needed. Does that mean you are against domestic prosperity and global freedom?

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I just wanted that clarification.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, 7 percent of the American people approve of the United States Congress. I think one of the reasons for that low approval rating is that we have overpromised and underperformed what they expect of us. If anybody would think that this bill in and of itself deserves to be called the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, I think they lose credibility with the American people. And there is not much more credibility to lose when they only support us at a rate of 7 percent. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), for whom I have an enormous amount of affection, even though today we have had two bills where we have disagreed. He doesn't overpromise. He just states his views and supports what he believes in. Sometimes he even convinces me, but he is not doing a good job today.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the gentleman from Colorado how many more speakers you have?

Mr. WAXMAN. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time. Then I presume the gentleman from Colorado will want to close on his bill. So after your two speakers, we will close on our side, and then you can close.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For those who want to export natural gas, this bill really isn't necessary because the Department of Energy is approving enough export of natural gas that will allow us, in a few years, to be the largest exporter of LNG in the world. So DOE is acting. For those of you who are concerned about global freedom, well, when we get all the facilities going to be able to export the natural gas and once we get all of the approvals to export natural gas, the countries who are going to receive this natural gas are most likely going to be China, Japan, and India, because that is where they are paying higher prices for natural gas. It is going to be more profitable to ship the LNG there. I don't fault the companies for doing that. They are in business to make money. It is going to provide more money to ship the natural gas there. Well, what about Ukraine? What about the countries that are under threat from Russia? Angela Merkel, the head of Germany, may not realize it, but natural gas is not going to be there for quite a long time. It is going to take years. Therefore, if you think domestic prosperity is hinging on the ability to export natural gas, we don't need this bill. If you think global freedom is hanging on the balance waiting for this bill to become law--and by ``global freedom'' you don't mean freedom for China to get more natural gas or India or Japan, but Ukraine and countries in eastern Europe--don't count on this bill to bring about global freedom. The bill is grossly titled because it is promising more than this bill can ever deliver, and I would urge that this bill is not necessary and ought to be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to Sec. 217 of H.R. 4435, the `Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. During the committee markup of this bill, language was added that limits the availability of funding for the modernization initiatives for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program. This provision fences off 50 percent of the funds for the SBIRS SMI Hosted Payloads and Wide Field of View Testbed projects until the ongoing analysis of alternatives for the SBIRS is completed and reported to the congressional defense committees. I am concerned that restricting funding for these initiatives will derail important efforts to develop future architecture concepts for the missile warning platform. Fencing funds for those projects will likely ensure that alternative architectures will not be viable or informative when the major acquisition milestone decision on the next SBIRS is made in the 2017-2018 timeframe. The Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center estimates that the 50 percent restriction will delay the launch of the demonstration by seven months, pushing the project completion date to April 2018 and incurring about $10 million in cost growth. It is my understanding that the intent of the bill's language is not to damage or derail these important modernization efforts, but rather to compel the timely completion of the Department's ongoing Analysis of Alternatives for the missile warning architecture. I support that goal, but I believe it should be achieved without limiting funds for the modernization initiatives for the SBIRS program.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would have voted on the following votes had I been in attendance, on H.R. 4660, Commerce Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. Yes--Amendment 738 by Rep. James Moran (A049) to strike sections 528 and 529 which prohibit the use of funds to be used to transfer or release any detainee who is or was held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or construct any facility in the U.S. to house any detainee held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Roll No. 254 No--Amendment 742 by Rep. Blackburn (A053) to reduce by 1 percent each amount made available by the bill, except funding for the FBI, fees and expenses for witnesses, public safety officer benefits, and the US Trustee System Fund. Roll No. 255 No--Amendment 744 by Rep. Blackburn (A055) to prohibit the use of fluids for operation, renovation, or construction at Thomson Correctional Facility in Illinois. Roll No. 256 Yes--Amendment 745 by Rep. Bonamici (A056) to prohibit the use of funds to prevent a State from implementing its own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp, as defined in section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Roll No. 257 Yes--Amendment 748 by Rep. Rohrabacher (A059) to prohibit the use of funds to prevent certain States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Roll No. 258 No--Amendment 750 by Rep. George Holding (A061) to prohibit the use of funds to transfer or temporarily assign employees to the Office of the Pardon Attorney for the purpose of screening clemency applications. Roll No. 259 Yes--Amendment 754 by Rep. Massie (A065) to prohibit the use of funds in contravention of section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 by the Department of Justice of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Roll No. 260 No--Amendment 756 by Rep. Southerland (A067) to prohibit the use of funds to develop, approve, or implement a new limited access privilege program that are not already developed, approved, or implemented for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Roll No. 261 Yes--Amendment 759 by Ellison (A070) to prohibit use of funds to enter into a contract with any person whose disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition outlined in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act''. Roll No. 262 Yes--Amendment 763 by Grayson (A074) to prohibit the use of funds to compel a journalist or a reporter to testify about information or sources that the journalist or reporter states in a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential. Roll No. 263 No--Amendment 767 by Rep. Duffy (A078) to prohibit the use of funds to relinquish the responsibility of the NTIA with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. Roll No. 264 No--Amendment 768 by Rep. Garrett (A079) to prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Justice to enforce the Fair Housing Act in a manner that relies upon an allegation of liability under C.F.R. 100.500. Roll No. 265 No--Amendment 770 by Rep. Steve King (A081) to prohibit use of funds in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)). Roll No. 266 No--Amendment 771 by Rep. Meadows (A082)--At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: SEC.--. None of the funds made available by this Act ***. Roll No. 267 Yes--Motion to Recommit with Instructions. No--Final Passage.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014. I represent the VA West Los Angeles Medical Center, which is the largest VA medical facility in the Nation. I am outraged by the recent allegations of serious misconduct and mismanagement at VA hospitals. I understand the urgency my colleagues feel to act, but this legislation will not solve the problems plaguing the Department of Veterans Affairs because it doesn't address the systemic deficiencies that are preventing our veterans from getting the care they so deserve. H.R. 4031 has been brought to the floor without a committee hearing or markup. It gives the Secretary of the VA the authority to fire Senior Executive Service (SES) employees at will. The Secretary already has the authority to fire SES employees for cause. The legislation is not only unnecessary; it is harmful because it would allow political appointees to fire nonpolitical senior federal executives for any reason. It would set a bad precedent and jeopardize the Department's ability to recruit the most talented individuals to the VA. I want to work with my colleagues to draft sensible legislation that will actually solve the problems at the VA with a new metric for accountability and executive performance.