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.
Share & report
More from Henry Waxman
I am not a member of the Science Committee, so I wasn't part of the deliberations, but when a bill is presented as being about transparency and openness and relying on science, I ask myself: ``Well, of course, why would there be any…
I want Members to know I am going to put a statement in the Record supporting this legislation and urging all of our colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5728, the Satellite Television Extension and…
On rollcall No. 460, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Holt The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 113-563…
The last gentleman that spoke said everybody is for this. Well, everybody in Louisiana is clearly for it. The Senator from Louisiana has been a strong supporter of it, and the would-be replacement Senator is strongly for it. The Republican…





