Monday, October 04, 2004

LNG THREATS....NEW BILL IN HOUSE HR4413

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4413
To require certain terms and conditions for the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of liquefied natural gas import terminals, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 20, 2004
Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. SULLIVAN, and Mr. NUNES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To require certain terms and conditions for the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of liquefied natural gas import terminals, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminal Development Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS IMPORT TERMINALS.

(a) Exportation or Importation of Natural Gas- Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) is amended to read as follows:

`EXPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS

`SEC. 3. (a) Authorization Order- No person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order of the Secretary of Energy authorizing such person to do so. The Secretary shall issue such order upon application, unless, after opportunity for hearing, the Secretary finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest. The Secretary may by order grant such application, in whole or in part, with such modification and upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary may find necessary or appropriate, and may from time to time, after opportunity for hearing, and for good cause shown, make such supplemental order as the Secretary may find necessary or appropriate.

`(b) Free Trade Agreements and Liquefied Natural Gas- With respect to natural gas which is imported into the United States from a nation with which there is in effect a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with respect to liquefied natural gas--

`(1) the importation of such natural gas shall be treated as a `first sale' within the meaning of section 2(21) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978; and

`(2) the Secretary of Energy shall not, on the basis of national origin, treat any such imported natural gas on an unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential basis.

`(c) Application and Approval Process- For purposes of subsection (a), the importation of the natural gas referred to in subsection (b), or the exportation of natural gas to a nation with which there is in effect a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, shall be deemed to be consistent with the public interest, and applications for such importation or exportation shall be granted without modification or delay.

`(d) Authorization for Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminals- (1) No person shall site, construct, expand, or operate a liquefied natural gas import terminal without first having secured an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizing such person to do so. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall issue such order upon application, unless, after opportunity for hearing, it finds that the proposed siting, construction, expansion, or operation will not be consistent with the public interest. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may by its order grant such application, in whole or in part, with such modification and upon such terms and conditions as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may find necessary or appropriate.

`(2) An order issued pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be conditioned on--

`(A) a requirement that the liquefied natural gas import terminal offer service to persons other than the person securing the order;

`(B) any regulation of the liquefied natural gas import terminal's rates, charges, terms, or conditions of service; or

`(C) a requirement to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission schedules or contracts related to the liquefied natural gas import terminal's rates, charges, terms, or conditions of service.

`(3) Except as otherwise provided by Federal law, no State or local government may require a permit, license, concurrence, approval, certificate, or other form of authorization with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas import terminal.


`(4) Any decision made or action taken by a Federal administrative agency or officer (or State administrative agency or officer acting under delegated Federal authority) with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas import terminal must be consistent with any authorization provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to this subsection with respect to the liquefied natural gas import terminal, and shall not prohibit or unreasonably delay the siting, construction, expansion, or operation.

`(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to repeal or modify the authority under this section to authorize a person to import or export natural gas or to authorize facilities for the import or export of natural gas other than liquefied natural gas import terminals.

`(e) Schedule and Administrative Record- (1) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall approve or deny any application to site, construct, expand, or operate a liquefied natural gas import terminal under subsection (d) not later than 1 year after the application is complete.

`(2) With respect to each application under subsection (d), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall establish a schedule for all Federal and State administrative proceedings commenced under authority of Federal law, the completion of which is required before a person may site, construct, expand, or operate the liquefied natural gas import terminal, in order to ensure expeditious progress toward such siting, construction, expansion, or operation. The schedule shall also include all Federal and State administrative proceedings authorized by Federal law for the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of natural gas pipelines and facilities related to the transportation of liquefied natural gas or natural gas from the liquefied natural gas import terminal. In establishing the schedule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall, to the extent practicable, accommodate the applicable schedules established by Federal law for such proceedings. If a Federal or State administrative agency or officer fails to complete a proceeding in accordance with the schedule established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the action of the Federal or State administrative agency or officer that is required before a person may site, construct, expand, or operate the liquefied natural gas import terminal shall be conclusively presumed and the siting, construction, expansion, or operation shall proceed without condition.

`(3) With respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas import terminal, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall compile a single administrative record which shall consolidate the records of the proceedings referred to in paragraph (2).

`(4) Any Federal administrative proceeding that is an appeal or review of a decision made or action taken by a Federal administrative agency or officer (or State administrative agency or officer acting under delegated Federal authority) with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas import terminal shall use as its exclusive record for all purposes the administrative record compiled by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under paragraph (3).

`(f) Judicial Review- (1) Except for review by the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of certiorari, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil action for review of a decision made or action taken by a Federal administrative agency or officer (or State administrative agency or officer acting under delegated Federal authority) with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas import terminal. The civil action shall be filed not later than 60 days after the decision or action described in this paragraph.

`(2) If a civil action referred to in paragraph (1) is filed, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall file in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the single administrative record compiled under subsection (e)(3) with respect to the liquefied natural gas import terminal named in the civil action.

`(g) Lead Agency- With respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas import terminal, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall be the lead Federal agency for purposes of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).'.

(b) Definition- Section 2 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717a) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(11) `Liquefied natural gas import terminal' includes all facilities located onshore or in State waters that are used to receive, unload, store, transport, gasify, or process liquefied natural gas that is imported to the United States from a foreign country, but does not include the tankers used to deliver liquefied natural gas to such facilities.'.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

Baghdad is Burning

Influx of wounded soldiers strains VA

Claims backlog faces troops returning from Iraq, Afghanistan

By Josh White
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:46 a.m. ET Oct. 3, 2004


WASHINGTON - Thousands of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with physical injuries and mental health problems are encountering a benefits system that is already overburdened, and officials and veterans' groups are concerned that the challenge could grow as the nation remains at war.

The disability benefits and health care systems that provide services for about 5 million American veterans have been overloaded for decades and have a current backlog of more than 300,000 claims. And because they were mobilized to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 150,000 National Guard and reservist veterans had become eligible for health care and benefits as of Aug. 1. That number is rising.

Cuts proposed amid rising demand
At the same time, President Bush's budget for 2005 calls for cutting the Department of Veterans Affairs staff that handles benefits claims, and some veterans report long waits for benefits and confusing claims decisions.

"I love the military; that was my life. But I don't believe they're taking care of me now," said Staff Sgt. Gene Westbrook, 35, of Lawton, Okla. Paralyzed in a mortar attack near Baghdad in April, he has received no disability benefits because his paperwork is missing. He is supporting his wife and three children on his regular military pay of $2,800 a month as he awaits a ruling on whether he will receive $6,500 a month from the VA for his disability.

Through the end of April, the most recent accounting the VA could provide, a total of 166,334 veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan had separated from military service, and 26,633 — 16 percent — had filed benefits claims with the VA for service-connected disabilities. Less than two-thirds of those claims had been processed, leaving more than 9,750 recent veterans waiting.

Officials expect those numbers to increase as the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan continues.

"I think we're doing okay now, but I am worried," VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi said in a recent interview. "It is something you have to be concerned about. We don't have a good handle on the extent to which the demand for care and benefits will be a year or five years from now."

Bureaucratic disconnect
Principi acknowledged that one of the most challenging elements of providing for recently returned veterans is the disconnect between the Defense Department and the VA. His department has been working to streamline the process, he said, placing VA staff members at 136 bases across the country and at military medical centers.

But people such as Westbrook still fall into a no-man's land.

Westbrook was deployed to Iraq in January as a drill sergeant, sent to train Iraqi army recruits. While on duty April 28 south of Sadr City in Baghdad, he was hit by a mortar shell, and the shrapnel severed his spine. He is now paralyzed from the chest down, has limited movement in his right arm, and battles constant infections. His wife takes care of him full time.

Though Westbrook praises the way the Army has treated him since his injury, including providing excellent medical care, he has struggled to make it on his regular pay since he returned July 14. "They're supposed to expedite the process, and they have not done that," he said, adding that officers in his Army unit have been trying in vain to help. Charities have been set up in his honor to help defray costs.

"It's very draining, because I don't know what to do, and my family is asking when we'll get the money," he said. "It's the hardest part about this whole thing."

What injured or ill veterans are finding when they return from overseas is a complex set of government processes for reviewing whether they will receive financial help. They have to navigate two of the largest U.S. government bureaucracies in the VA and the Pentagon, and multiple medical review boards assess the extent of their injuries.

Outreach continues despite backlog
Even with the current backlog and the prospect of staffing cuts, VA officials are trying to increase the department's visibility, reaching out to new veterans to make sure they are aware of the services they can receive and urging them to apply.

Principi said he recently sent letters to 178,000 veterans explaining the available benefits. He said the department is doing its best to keep wait times down by giving recent veterans higher priority, aiming for benefit claims that are filled within 100 days. Currently, the VA takes about 160 days per claim, and 60,000 to 70,000 new claims come in each month.

There is also a more concerted effort to identify veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition that experts estimate affects about 15 percent of veterans. Principi said he believes mental health concerns could become a dominant issue for the VA as insurgent warfare places new pressures on U.S. troops and as American society places more emphasis on mental health.

A Government Accountability Office report issued Sept. 20 concluded that the VA does not have enough information to determine whether it can handle a rush of PTSD cases.

"The system is already strained, and it's going to get strained even worse," said David Autry, a spokesman for Disabled American Veterans. "It's not a rosy picture at all, and they can't possibly hope to say they're going to provide timely benefits to the new folks if they can't provide timely care to the people already in the system."

Frustrating 'rating' process
For veterans, the VA's system for evaluating disability claims can be the most frustrating element of the process. Through the end of August, the agency had about 330,000 cases waiting to get a "rating," or a percentage figure approved by an evaluation board that decides how much a disabled veteran will receive monthly from the VA.

The ratings system uses a complex guide to calculate, for example, how disabling it is to lose a foot or to be blinded in one eye. Soldiers are rated from zero percent to 100 percent disabled, and compensation varies from nothing to thousands of dollars each month. Those rated 100 percent disabled are eligible to receive indefinite monthly payments aimed at allowing them to live without working.

Board decisions can take months as they weigh the severity of injuries and make sure they were suffered while the veteran was in the service. Appeals of such decisions can take years, and board decisions can be reevaluated.

"Sometimes it takes six months to a year to get your claim decided, sometimes longer," said Cathy Wiblemo, deputy director for health care at the American Legion. "We never think it's enough," Wiblemo said, referring to the disability payments. "It's hard to say that any amount of money can compensate for what these people have lost in defending our country."

Benefits at risk
Robert Acosta, 21, of Tustin, Calif., said he relies on his disability checks of $2,332 a month to survive, but the VA is now reevaluating his case. Acosta's right hand was blown off and his left leg was shattered when he was ambushed at the gate to Baghdad International Airport on July 13, 2003. The passenger in a Humvee, he grabbed a grenade that had been lobbed through the window, saving his driver.

Acosta said he cannot work because his prosthetic right hand has been giving him trouble, his left leg has not returned to normal and he suffers from nightmares. Initially, he was rated 70 percent disabled — the medical board did not want to account for his leg injury, his PTSD claims and his hearing loss. After accepting those claims and rating him 100 percent disabled, the VA is questioning them again, asking Acosta to prove that some of his disabilities are service-related.

"They said there was no proof of it," Acosta said, referring to his PTSD claim. It took two months after he left the service for him to get his first disability payment, he said, and he spent his savings in the meantime. "I'm going to therapy every week. I'm working on it. I have bad dreams, I don't sleep at night and I get really jumpy. I don't know what they want me to do."

Rep. Lane Evans (Ill.), ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, said the VA is woefully underfunded and unprepared. The current budget for fiscal 2005, which is still pending in Congress even though the fiscal year ended on Thursday, calls for cutting more than 500 claims processors and does not meet the VA's basic funding requests.

"The VA is not ready for an influx of new veterans from the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq," Evans said.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6161353/

Baghdad Blog....Enlightening

A strident minority: anti-Bush US troops in Iraq

from the September 21, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html


Though military personnel lean conservative, some vocally support Kerry - or at least a strategy for swift withdrawal.
By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Inside dusty, barricaded camps around Iraq, groups of American troops in between missions are gathering around screens to view an unlikely choice from the US box office: "Fahrenheit 9-11," Michael Moore's controversial documentary attacking the commander-in-chief.

"Everyone's watching it," says a Marine corporal at an outpost in Ramadi that is mortared by insurgents daily. "It's shaping a lot of people's image of Bush."

The film's prevalence is one sign of a discernible countercurrent among US troops in Iraq - those who blame President Bush for entangling them in what they see as a misguided war. Conventional wisdom holds that the troops are staunchly pro-Bush, and many are. But bitterness over long, dangerous deployments is producing, at a minimum, pockets of support for Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, in part because he's seen as likely to withdraw American forces from Iraq more quickly.

"[For] 9 out of 10 of the people I talk to, it wouldn't matter who ran against Bush - they'd vote for them," said a US soldier in the southern city of Najaf, seeking out a reporter to make his views known. "People are so fed up with Iraq, and fed up with Bush."

With only three weeks until an Oct. 11 deadline set for hundreds of thousands of US troops abroad to mail in absentee ballots, this segment of the military vote is important - symbolically, as a reflection on Bush as a wartime commander, and politically, as absentee ballots could end up tipping the balance in closely contested states.

It is difficult to gauge the extent of disaffection with Bush, which emerged in interviews in June and July with ground forces in central, northern, and southern Iraq. No scientific polls exist on the political leanings of currently deployed troops, military experts and officials say.

To be sure, broader surveys of US military personnel and their spouses in recent years indicate they are more likely to be conservative and Republican than the US civilian population - but not overwhelmingly so.

A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Half of those responding were officers, who as a group tend to be more conservative than their enlisted counterparts.

Among officers, who represent roughly 15 percent of today's 1.4 million active duty military personnel, there are about eight Republicans for every Democrat, according to a 1999 survey by Duke University political scientist Peter Feaver. Enlisted personnel, however - a disproportionate number of whom are minorities, a population that tends to lean Democratic - are more evenly split. Professor Feaver estimates that about one third of enlisted troops are Republicans, one third Democrats, and the rest independents, with the latter group growing.

Pockets of ambivalence
"The military continues to be a Bush stronghold, but it's not a stranglehold," Feaver says. Three factors make the military vote more in play for Democrats this year than in 2000, he says: the Iraq war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's tense relationship with the Army, and Bush's limited ability as an incumbent to make sweeping promises akin to Senator Kerry's pledge to add 40,000 new troops and relieve an overstretched force.

"The military as a whole supports the Iraq war," Mr. Feaver says, noting a historical tendency of troops to back the commander in chief in wartime. "But you can go across the military and find pockets where they are more ambivalent," he says, especially among the National Guard and Reserve. "The war has not gone as swimmingly as they thought, and that has caused disaffection.

Whether representing pockets of opposition to Bush or something bigger, soldiers and marines on Iraq's front lines can be impassioned in their criticism. One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall.

"Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments.

"There's no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia," he said.

Specialist Swink, who comes from a family of both Democrats and Republicans, plans to vote for Kerry. "Kerry protested the war in Vietnam. He is the one to end this stuff, to lead to our exit of Iraq," he said.

'We shouldn't be here'
Other US troops expressed feelings of guilt over killing Iraqis in a war they believe is unjust.

"We shouldn't be here," said one Marine infantryman bluntly. "There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people," said the marine, who has seen regular combat in Ramadi. "I don't enjoy killing women and children, it's not my thing."

As with his comrades, the marine accepted some of the most controversial claims of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which critics have called biased. "Bush didn't want to attack [Osama] Bin Laden because he was doing business with Bin Laden's family," he said.

Another marine, Sgt. Christopher Wallace of Pataskala, Ohio, agreed that the film was making an impression on troops. "Marines nowadays want to know stuff. They want to be informed, because we'll be voting out here soon," he said. " 'Fahrenheit 9/11' opened our eyes to things we hadn't seen before." But, he added after a pause, "We still have full faith and confidence in our commander-in-chief. And if John Kerry is elected, he will be our commander in chief."

Getting out the military vote
No matter whom they choose for president, US troops in even the most remote bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere overseas are more likely than in 2000 to have an opportunity to vote - and have their votes counted - thanks to a major push by the Pentagon to speed and postmark their ballots. The Pentagon is now expediting ballots for all 1.4 million active-duty military personnel and their 1.3 million voting-age dependents, as well as 3.7 million US civilians living abroad.

"We wrote out a plan of attack on how we are going to address these issues this election year," says Maj. Lonnie Hammack, the lead postal officer for US Central Command, an area covering the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa, where more than 225,000 troops and Defense Department personnel serve.

The military has added manpower, flights, and postmark-validating equipment, and given priority to moving ballots - by Humvee or helicopter if necessary - even to far-flung outposts such as those on the Syrian and Pakistani border and Djibouti.

Meanwhile, voting-assistance officers in every military unit are remind- ing troops to vote, as are posters, e-mails, and newspaper and television announcements. Voting booths are also set up at deployment centers in the United States.

"We've had almost 100 percent contact," says Col. Darrell Jones, director of manpower and personnel for Central Command, and 200,000 federal postcard ballot applications have been shipped.

"We encourage our people to vote, not for a certain candidate, but to exercise that right," he said, noting that was especially important as the US military is "out there promoting fledgling democracy in these regions." Many of the younger troops may be voting for the first time, he added.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------