Keystone XL
The American people delivered a clear message on Election Day, and in the House we are not wasting any time moving forward with the conservative solutions that the American people expect, beginning by passing H.R. 5682, To Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, last week. Approving construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which is supported by a substantial majority of the American people, is a commonsense way to reduce our Nation’s dependence on Middle East oil, while also providing an immediate positive impact to the American Economy.
All told, Keystone XL will transport approximately 830,000 barrels of oil per day into this country from Canada, bring an estimated $7 billion in direct investment, and create 42,000 direct and indirect jobs. For more than six years, the Administration has dragged its feet on Keystone XL. In that time, when we could have been building the pipeline, multiple environmental impact studies have been completed, affirming that the project is safe, will have limited environmental impact, and will in fact be the world’s most advanced pipeline in terms of safety mechanisms.
Passage of H.R. 5682, To Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, which I cosponsored, is not the first time that the House has passed legislation to get Keystone XL off the ground; however, it is a clear indication that we will not stop advancing a pro-growth legislative agenda until these important items are signed into law by the President.
House Armed Services Hearing on the Administration's ISIL Strategy
Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey testified before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on the President’s strategy in fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). President Obama and the White House National Security Team have repeatedly mismanaged the threat posed by ISIL, and I hoped this would have been an opportunity to get clarification on how they intend on meeting their goal of destroying this incessant terrorist organization.
Unfortunately, it was not very reassuring that Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey seemed unaware the Administration’s National Security Team was in the process of changing their strategy with Syria. This is not surprising, however, as even the President initially requested to repeal the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against Al Qaeda and its’ affiliates—the same AUMF being used as justification for the growing mission and airstrikes against ISIL. In July 2014, the President’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, stated that “the Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any U.S. government activities and the Administration fully supports its repeal. Such a repeal would go much further in giving the American people confidence that ground forces will not be sent into combat in Iraq.” However, this request was never reviewed by the Department of Defense and runs counter to the Administration’s current interpretation of the existing AUMF.
This last year has been replete with the “just-in-time,” half-measures and mixed messages taken by the President to combat ISIL. If the President and Congress are serious about defeating ISIL, then the Congress needs to approve a new AUMF to specifically and legally cover the fight against ISIL. The history of the last half century shows us incremental augmentations of war without a clear strategic view can lead to painful and costly lessons. Adding to the danger, failing to clearly signal to both our allies and enemies what America will or will not stand for can also lead to catastrophic miscalculations by all entities involved.
In light of the fall of important Iraqi cities; repeated warnings from the intelligence community and CENTCOM Commanders; the brutality and adept messaging shown by ISIL; and the interjection of Iranian influence in Iraq’s current government; I am steadfast in affirming ISIL as a threat to our national security. When the President revealed his initial ISIL strategy to build regional coalitions and support efforts against ISIL, I was very optimistic. However, my confidence in the Administration to address the threat diminishes every day. For example, in the HASC hearing last week, it was pointed out that we still have no Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, protecting our troops stationed in Iraq fighting ISIL. Having no such agreement was the justification the President used to withdraw troops from Iraq creating the vacuum that helped create ISIL.
The request to train and equip poorly scrutinized and vetted Syrian forces was not originally coordinated with the Department of Defense, and I voted against the authorization in the House. I hope the President listens to the advice of military experts more so than his political advisors because our allies and adversaries in the Middle East, and across the globe, are watching.
Waters of the United States Rule
Another area where the Administration has sought to expand their reach far beyond its proper bounds is through their so-called “Waters of the United States” rule, which would redefine the federal government’s authority to regulate our Nation’s waters under the Clean Water Act. Under this rule, EPA’s authority would be so broad that virtually any piece of land with any amount of water on it could conceivably be subject to regulation—forcing everyone from farmers to homeowners to small businesses to comply with a new maze of regulations.
I have consistently opposed this rule since it was first released in March 2014, and I cosponsored and voted for legislation, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, which would prohibit the Administration from developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing either their proposed “Waters of the United States” rule, or using it as a basis for any future rulemaking. Most recently, I and several of my colleagues sent a letter to EPA calling on them to extend the comment period for this proposed rule for another 90 days beyond its initial closing date of Friday November, 14. With the potentially massive scope of this rule, it is only right that EPA allow for all stakeholders to weigh in on it. Regardless of EPA’s response to this letter, however, I will continue to fight against the rule, as well as any other attempts by the EPA to increase their already bloated regulatory bureaucracy.
Veterans Corner
Firing of VA Pittsburgh Director Two Years after Deadly Disease Outbreak
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced that VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System Director Terry Gerigk Wolf has been fired. Given that Wolf’s firing comes two years after the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System Legionnaires’ disease outbreak ended, it’s obvious VA had no interest in holding her accountable initially and was only driven to this point after intense congressional and media scrutiny. Still, this action falls fall short of what’s needed to provide closure to the veterans and families struck by an outbreak that VA failed to stop and actively hid from the public. Though VA is finally holding someone accountable, we must also remember that the department has rewarded other central figures in the outbreak. Wolf’s boss collected a $63,000 bonus days after the Inspector General attributed the outbreak to mismanagement, and VA recently promoted Wolf’s deputy even though internal emails provide smoking-gun evidence he tried to hide the outbreak from the public. Though Wolf’s removal is a positive step, VA still has a lot to learn about honesty, integrity and accountability, and this action doesn’t change that fact.
Department of Veterans Affairs Announces Plan for Organizational Restructuring
The Department of Veterans Affairs announced its plan for organizational restructuring. While new plans, initiatives and organizational structures are all well and good, they will not produce their intended results until VA rids itself of the employees who have shaken veterans’ trust in the system. The fact is that the majority of those who caused the VA scandal are still on the department payroll. I’m disappointed that instead of fully embracing the new firing authorities Congress gave VA as part of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, the department has shied away from them and even added more bureaucratic red tape, such as additional appeals and interminable stints on paid leave. No one doubts that reforming VA is a tough job. But getting rid of failed executives should be the easiest part – not the most difficult.
Hearing to Assess the Implementation of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014
The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs held a hearing last week to thoroughly examine VA’s implementation of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 to ensure it is being implemented the way Congress and the president intended.
The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (VACAA) sailed through Congress with near-unanimous support and was signed by President Obama August 7, 2014. The law was passed in response to a massive scandal in which corrupt VA bureaucrats lied about medical care wait times in order to secure bonuses for themselves. Though VACAA includes landmark civil service reforms that President Obama, himself, has said provide VA the authority to quickly fire failed senior leaders, VA has only fired two executives in the wake of its six-month-old wait times scandal. In fact, the scandal’s central figure, Phoenix VA Health Care System Director Sharon Helman, remains on paid leave collecting a salary of nearly $170,000 per year even though the Department of Justice has said it doesn’t mind if Helman is fired.
The legislation also requires VA to set up a choice program offering non-VA medical care to veterans who are unable to get an appointment at a VA medical facility within 30 days or who reside 40 miles or more from the nearest VA medical facility, with certain exceptions. Though the law provided VA with $10 billion in additional funding to implement the choice program and $5 billion to increase access to VA medical care by hiring health care workers and improving department infrastructure, department officials have already said they need even more money. Given that VA has yet to present a detailed plan for how it will spend the $5 billion and the fact that VA has carried over hundreds of millions in unspent medical care funding from one year to the next every fiscal year since 2010, it is still unclear how any additional VA funding would be spent.
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: Washington Update by Congressman Jeff Miller