Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas told us that he was so moved to come here to correct the record. But he told us three things that are absolutely inaccurate: The President has never said he doesn't want to build new power plants in this country. It is not true. The gentleman from Texas who worked for the EPA never said that this administration, or that he personally, was against hydraulic fracturing. It's just not true. And the analysis of the endangerment finding by the Bush administration was signed off on not by just a career civil servant, but by the head of the EPA, appointed by President Bush. So when you get these wrong statements in your head, you can dream up a reason to be paranoid about EPA. EPA wants to protect the public health and safety in regulating coal ash, but in doing so, they will not prevent coal ash from being used for other building purposes. I urge that we defeat this motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Throughout this Congress, House Republicans have made an all-out assault on our Nation's most basic public health and environmental protections. And they have blocked any effort to address climate change, move towards clean energy, or promote energy efficiency. On Monday, Congressman Markey and I released a report that documents this all-out assault. It confirms that this is the most anti- environment House in the history of Congress. Over the last 18 months, the House has voted 247 times to undermine protection of the environment. That's almost one out of every five votes taken in the House. The oil and gas industry has benefited more than any other sector from these anti-environment votes. Since the beginning of 2011, the House has voted 109 times for policies that would advance the interests of the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment, public health, and the taxpayer. The result is a grave and growing peril to our environment, to public health, and to our economy. The massive wildfires, floods, droughts, and heat waves that have been afflicting our country are a harbinger of what is to come. Americans know this. As the Washington Post reported this morning, the vast majority of Americans believe our environment is deteriorating, and they know that unchecked pollution from oil refineries and other industrial sources is making the problem worse. Yet what are we doing today? Today's bill is one more massive giveaway, and it is one more assault on the environment. This bill contains two proposals reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee. One would block standards for oil companies to clean up their pollution. The other seeks to bypass existing leasing programs in order to pry open every possible acre of Federal land for oil drilling. This legislation has been promoted as a solution to high gasoline prices. But this bill is a Trojan horse. This bill would not lower prices by one penny. This bill doesn't protect consumers. It hurts them. The bill will keep dirty gasoline on the market, allow oil refineries to spew toxic emissions, and forestall action to address climate change. Tucked inside this legislation is the Latta amendment. The language of this amendment cuts the heart out of the Clean Air Act, radically changing the way air quality standards are set. Rather than basing smog standards on what is healthy for our children to breathe, this bill would require standards to be based on what industry says it will cost to reduce pollution. This radical proposal will undermine decades of progress on cleaning up the air. The bill will also cost jobs. The regulations blocked by this bill would create tens of thousands of jobs installing pollution controls and modernizing oil refineries. In addition, this bill would make it harder for the President to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during emergencies by layering on new bureaucratic requirements to force drilling across a vast expanse of public land. This bill may be good for the oil companies, it may be good for the special interests, but it is a disaster for the American people. The Republican energy policy isn't an all-of-the-above policy; it's oil above all. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), and I would like to ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the rest of the time for our side of the aisle on the general debate.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment highlights, Mr. Chairman, the absurdity of title II of the Republican bill. The bill will create a new government bureaucracy to conduct an unrealistic and burdensome study of several clean air rules, none of which have even been proposed. This is a fundamentally flawed approach. The scope and timing of the new government committee's analysis simply are not feasible. The bill requires a new interagency committee to estimate a host of cumulative impacts of multiple unrelated potential rules. The committee is supposed to estimate impacts on gasoline prices, capital investments, projected maintenance and operation of new equipment, refinery capacity, employment at the national, State and regional levels, other cumulative costs and benefits, and even the overall global economic competitiveness of the United States. Since none of the rules that are supposed to be analyzed have even been proposed, this complex analysis required by the bill would be full of guesswork and assumptions. It's unclear how this new government bureaucracy could estimate the level of pollution control that may be required, predict compliance options, or assess the specified effects. Given all of the uncertainties and guess work inherent in such an analysis, it's unclear how the committee could produce an economic analysis of the rules with any measure of credibility. EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy testified: It is unclear how the new committee would analyze rules that have not yet been proposed, or how the public could comment on that analysis in an informed way. She also noted that such analysis would be redundant and a waste of government resources, given the extensive analysis EPA already completes as part of the rulemaking process and the interagency review conducted by OMB. The bill provides an unrealistic deadline, as well, for completing this report, doesn't create an additional job in the private sector. All it will do is devote taxpayers' money to create another government committee in order to provide it with the hopeless task of conducting a host of complex analyses that probably could not be completed with any credibility, even if the necessary data did exist and the committee had years to work. So the whole thing is a pointless waste of taxpayers' money required by the bill. Now, Mr. McKinley's amendment adds some additional consultation to that already absurd requirement. The Department of Energy is already represented on this new government committee the Republicans want to establish. In fact, the Secretary of Energy chairs the committee. Mr. McKinley's amendment adds a requirement that the committee consult with part of the Department of Energy. This adds another layer of unnecessary, superfluous consultation on an already unwieldy process. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, title II of this bill blocks the EPA from finalizing several important air quality rules until after a new government bureaucracy produces a new analysis of these and other EPA actions. But it's a fool's errand because a new government bureaucracy is required to conduct an impossible analysis of rules that haven't even been proposed using data that doesn't exist. The bill would block the EPA from issuing new tier 3 standards for motor vehicles and fuels to reduce harmful tailpipe emissions that cause smog and deadly particle pollution. Smog and soot pollution can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks, and even premature death. The bill would block the EPA from issuing long overdue rules to require refineries to use modern technology to reduce their emissions of toxic air pollutants. The pollutants cause cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and other serious health problems. The bill would also block the EPA from issuing rules necessary for States and localities to implement the 2008 ozone standard. This would leave the outdated 1997 ozone standard in place. Even the Bush administration thought this standard was too weak. In addition, the bill would block the EPA from updating the ozone standard to reflect the best available science on the health effects of breathing dirty air. During the legislative hearing on this bill, Chairman Whitfield stated, ``It is not the intent of this legislation to roll back any existing health protections.'' That claim is laughable for a bill that radically changes the Clean Air Act by barring the EPA from setting air quality goals based on what the science tells us is safe to breathe. But if Republicans want to claim that this bill is not an attack on the Clean Air Act and public health, there should be no objection to my amendment. My amendment simply states that, notwithstanding the bill's provisions and notwithstanding all that's in this bill, the EPA administrator cannot delay implementing any of the rules targeted by the bill if the air pollution that would be controlled by those rules causes serious harm to human health, including asthma attacks and other respiratory disease, heart attacks, cancer, birth defects, brain damage, or premature death. This is a simple choice between oil industry profits and Americans' health. The top five oil companies earned $137 billion in profits last year. They can afford to clean up their pollution. Instead, this bill would make Americans pick up the tab for the oil companies, and it would make Americans pay that tab with their health and even their lives. The air quality protections blocked by this bill are especially important for the most vulnerable among us--our babies, kids, old people. Oil refineries are among the largest emitters of toxic air pollution, and they are often located near where people live, but this bill would indefinitely delay the EPA's ability to require oil refineries to clean up pollution such as benzene, which causes cancer and contributes to birth defects and developmental harm in babies. Republicans argue these rules would only be delayed for a while, but many of these rules have already been delayed for far too long. The Republicans' claim assumes that the interagency committee can actually complete the impossible study required by this bill. Even if that were possible, there would still be no deadlines for these new rules as the bill eliminates existing deadlines and sets no new ones. Americans rely on the Environmental Protection Agency to hold polluters responsible for cleaning up their pollution. It's just common sense. If you stop the EPA from doing its job, public health will suffer. So it's time to come clean. If you want to pass a bill to stop the EPA from doing its job and allow polluters to pollute with impunity, be honest with the American people. Tell them you think that we have done enough to reduce air pollution and that you want to stop any further efforts to clean up air pollution, but don't pretend that this get-out- of-jail-free card for oil industry polluters won't hurt the health of Americans, especially our children and the elderly. If, on the other hand, you don't want to block efforts to clean up air pollution that is contributing to asthma attacks, heart attacks, lung disease, cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and premature death, then support my amendment. My amendment will make it perfectly clear that the EPA can continue to clean up air pollution that causes serious health effects. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WAXMAN. There is a regulation for Tier 3 standards for automobiles that will reduce sulfur and other emissions that are very harmful. EPA's analysis says that will contribute a penny per gallon for gasoline. That is the kind of rule that would be stopped under the existing bill, and there is an enormous health impact. When you talk about people in poverty, they can afford a penny a gallon on gasoline and the oil companies can afford to absorb a penny a gallon, especially with all of the health and lives that can be enhanced by removing some of these very dangerous chemicals.

Mr. WAXMAN. But you claim that it's going to increase it by many dollars, and I think you're incorrect.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The Clean Air Act was adopted in 1970, signed by President Nixon. Changes were made in 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush. The heart of the Clean Air Act has been that EPA relies on the best science possible to determine what level of pollution is harmful for people to breathe. They decide what is safe. And based on the science, EPA sets a quality standard. This is the standard to protect public health. Then they take into consideration, at the State and local level, the costs of how to achieve that. They may give more time; they may do it in different ways. But section 206 of the bill would end this commonsense approach, the main part of the Clean Air Act, because it would make cost a factor in what is supposed to be a scientific decision about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe. In setting a public health standard, it would give as much weight to a polluter's accountant as to a scientist. This is like going to your doctor, asking for a diagnosis, and he wants to tell you what your diagnosis is based on the cost of treatment. You want to know what's most important for your health. That's what's required of the EPA. You will hear over and over again Republicans saying, We've done well in reducing pollution. And we have because of a Clean Air Act that's based on setting a standard to protect health and then allowing costs to determine how to achieve that standard, but not setting the goal based on costs that could be wildly out of sync with the reality of what it would take and how much to spend to achieve that health-based standard. This is a very, very radical provision in the bill. I want to commend my colleague Mr. Green for seeking to strike it. It would be consistent with the law as we have always known it, not to go back and change it as this bill would do.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment would change the law--the Clean Air Act-- that authorizes EPA to waive pollution control requirements for motor vehicle fuels where there's an extremely unusual fuel supply circumstance. Well, we want that ability to waive that law. And EPA is already allowed to do that. But the Terry amendment provides that if EPA doesn't act in 3 days, it's automatically granted. And that's not enough time for EPA to act. Often, a request for a waiver is incomplete. We don't know exactly why they're asking for the waiver. They haven't come up with all the information. It may not specify the area that could be covered. It may not be clear on exactly which fuel parameters are waived. So under this amendment the EPA would have to choose between two bad options. They could reject the waiver and then perhaps approve a revised version a few days later when EPA gets the necessary information. Well, that doesn't make any sense. Fuel suppliers are going to be confused. They may be concerned that EPA won't address a situation where they need some rule. Or, EPA can allow an ambiguous and confusing waiver request to become effective. Again, this would just leave fuel suppliers confused and uncertain about what they have to do. Since the waiver would become effective automatically, how would fuel suppliers even find out it had gone into effect? It's also unclear what constitutes a waiver of request. I think there's a lot of confusion in this proposal. I don't know why existing law should be changed. If there's been a problem, we haven't heard any testimony on this. We haven't had any hearings on this in our committee. Requiring laws and regulations to be waived hastily, based on incomplete information, and for potentially long periods of time, is simply bad policy. Regulations are adopted through a public process which allows all parties to participate and all relevant information to be considered. But without limits, waivers could effectively rewrite regulations without public input. That's why the Clean Air Act waiver provisions, which were adopted in 2005, are narrowly crafted. So I have a lot of misgivings about this policy. I don't know why we need it. We haven't had any testimony on it. It can lead to some very bad results. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, a waiver request does not have to come from a public entity. It can come from elsewhere as well. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, the House considers a bill that represents a significant bipartisan achievement. Our work to find a common approach to legislation to support and strengthen the FDA is truly remarkable. It has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Upton, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Dingell, and other members of the Committee to achieve this result. When we began this process, there were wildly divergent views on the various issues contained in this bill. But we worked together and found ways to address those issues in a way that protects both innovation and patients. This legislation contains several provisions that are critical to the functioning of major parts of FDA. Our reauthorization of FDA's drug and medical device user fee programs will provide resources to enable the efficient review of applications and give patients access to therapies at the earliest possible time. We are also reauthorizing two pediatric programs which foster the development and safe use of prescription drugs in children. This year we will be establishing two new programs to help speed FDA's review of new generics and biosimilars. These provisions illustrate our bipartisan commitment to ensuring a vibrant generic marketplace. All of us will see the benefits when more low-cost generics are on the market as a result of this legislation. The bill also includes provisions to modernize FDA's authorities with respect to the drug supply chain. FDA has been trying to keep pace with our increasingly globalized drug supply chain using an outdated statute. This legislation will give FDA critical new tools to police this dramatically different marketplace. We also have included some important provisions that will go a long way toward addressing drug shortages, which have unfortunately now become an all-too-frequent occurrence. When we began this process, I had concerns about many of the Republican proposals relating to medical devices. But we worked together to address those concerns and to assure that nothing in this bill will take us backwards in terms of patient safety. Our bipartisan work has truly paid off. I support this bill, but I also think we can continue to improve it in the area of antibiotics. I agree that we need to look at ways to incentivize the development of new antibiotics. But we would more effectively address this need if we narrowed the provisions of the GAIN Act to target only drugs that treat serious and life-threatening infections. Additionally, mandating that steps be taken to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics would strengthen the bill, in my view. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and their staffs, for the hard work they have put into making this a strong, bipartisan bill. I particularly want to thank Mr. Pallone's and Mr. Dingell's staff members Tiffany Guarascio and Kim Trzeciak as well as Mr. Upton's and Mr. Pitts' staff, Ryan Long and Clay Alspach. And, finally, my own staff, Karen Nelson, Rachel Sher, Eric Flamm, and Arun Patel. I expect the same level of bipartisan cooperation will continue as we work together with our colleagues in the Senate to get this to the President before the 4th of July recess.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to recognize the life of Mr. James Arness, the legendary actor best known for his role as U.S. Marshal Matt Dillon in the television series, ``Gunsmoke.'' Mr. Arness would have celebrated his 89th birthday tomorrow, on May 26, so it is fitting that we acknowledge his tremendous legacy this week. Mr. Arness played one of the most iconic characters in the history of television. As a testament to its overwhelming popularity, ``Gunsmoke,'' which was set in Dodge City, still stands out as one of the most popular weekly drama series, running a remarkable 20 years from 1955 through 1975. Mr. Arness shaped a character that was as beloved as the man himself. His fans spanned the world and were as devoted as any fan base bar none. Clearly, Mr. Arness created a cowboy and lawman that resonated with viewers worldwide. Before his rise to fame, Mr. Arness served in the U.S. Army during World War II, where he was severely wounded during Operation Shingle in Anzio, Italy. For his heroic actions, he was decorated with the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart. Following his military service, Mr. Arness hitchhiked to Hollywood and began his acting career. In addition to his wonderful role as Marshal Matt Dillon, he had a lengthy and impressive list of acting achievements in both television and film and was nominated for three Emmy Awards. For his unparalleled contributions, Mr. Arness was given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He was also inducted into the Western Performers Hall of Fame at the National Cowboy and Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City and the Santa Clarita Walk of Western Stars, and was named by People Magazine as one of the top ten television stars of all time. In addition, The State of Alabama House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Mr. Arness in 2011. Mr. Arness was a devoted and loving family man. He left behind his wife, Janet, along with wonderful children and grandchildren. His legacy will forever live on through them. It is my pleasure to recognize the iconic life of James Arness and ask my colleagues join me in expressing our debt of gratitude to him.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this instruction. First of all, whatever your views are on the pipeline coming out of Canada, this is not the place for this issue to be brought up because what this provision would do would be to short-circuit the decisionmaking and mandate approval of the pipeline. It doesn't belong in the transportation bill. We see this over and over again. Our Republican colleagues like to take bills and then hold them hostage to get what they want. They wanted to get the pipeline approved so they mandated the President had to make a decision within 60 days in a previous bill. The President didn't want it. He said, Okay, I'll sign it. But then he said he's not ready to make a decision in 60 days. So this provision doesn't require him to make a decision. It tells him this is going to be decided. This is going to be done. That's what we used to call earmarks, and in fact this is an earmark--a special interest earmark. On its merits, this legislative earmark for TransCanada makes no sense. Mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline might help jobs in other countries. It might create more jobs in Canada. But when the Republicans tell us it's going to produce so many jobs in the United States, they are not buying a pipeline; they are buying a pipe dream. A green light for Keystone will lead to massive imports of transmission pipe manufactured overseas. The American people will bear all the risks and Big Oil will reap all the rewards of this pipeline. We are going to get more carbon pollution, more dangerous oil spills, land seizures by a foreign company, and higher oil prices in the Midwest. Big Oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the Midwest, a conduit for exploiting tar sands products to China, because that's where this oil is going to go. Because it's an international transport of oil from these tar sands from Canada to the United States going down to the Gulf, it can then be put on steamers and sent to China, and there is no restriction against it. We have open markets, and China would be delighted to take that oil. But it is not going to benefit us. It is going to benefit China. President Obama listened to the differing views of American citizens and he made a responsible decision. He said he was not going to approve this pipeline through the ecologically fragile Sand Hills area of Nebraska. But the State Department would consider an alternative route, and Nebraska is still looking for another route that would be acceptable to the State. The President is making sure he has all the information he needs to make the right decision. This provision takes the opposite approach. It gives the pipeline an unprecedented legislative earmark. It doesn't give discretion. It requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the pipeline immediately, even though we don't know what route it will take through Nebraska. I think we ought to recognize these tar sands in Canada are very, very dirty, and it is going to require a lot of energy to get them into an oil form that can be transported through a pipeline. The consequence of that is going to be to add more carbon emissions at a time when our planet is already suffering from global warming and extreme climate change. It would be incredibly reckless for Congress to jeopardize this critically important transportation bill by playing politics over an unrelated and extraneous provision. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and to not put in this poison pill provision that would lead to the whole transportation bill being vetoed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has?

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether whoever is claiming time to speak on this motion on the Republican side of the aisle is, in fact, opposed to the motion.

Mr. WAXMAN. At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), an important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like, at this time, to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Before I yield to Mr. Rush from Illinois, I just want to make a comment. We need to get ourselves off of our dependence on oil whether it is from the United States or overseas; and if we go along with this pipeline, we are increasing our dependence on a very, very dirty oil that is going to use up a lot of carbon just to be able to get it into a State where it can be sent down that pipeline. I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member and, hopefully, the next chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Those of us who are speaking on this motion to instruct the conferees are from the Energy and Commerce Committee, not the Transportation Committee, which developed the fundamental underlying bill to which this pipeline issue has been attached. The transportation bill provides an enormous amount of money for people to have jobs building the roads, mass transit, other kinds of transportation systems, and that all will be stopped if we don't renew the transportation bill itself. The Senate, on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, got together and passed a transportation bill. The House wasn't able to do that. We were passing short-term extensions of existing law until we passed something to go to conference, and we're now in conference. So the motion is to instruct the conferees to take the House position on this pipeline issue. The problem with it is the President has said he'll veto the bill. He'll veto the transportation bill if the pipeline provision is in it. He said it because he feels it needs to be reviewed before the decision is made on whether to allow this pipeline to be built. I don't consider that unreasonable. What's really going on here is the Republicans want to stick it to the President. This is all politics. They want to make the President have to veto the bill, and then they'll say he vetoed the bill, how outrageous it is. Let's not play politics. Let's reject this motion to instruct. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, who was born on June 28, 1927, in Delaware, Ohio, and who passed away on March 10, 2012, at his home in Corona del Mar, California, at the age of 84. Professor Rowland was a giant in the scientific community. Along with his colleague Dr. Mario Molina, he discovered the serious threat to the earth's ozone layer posed by man-made chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. These supposedly harmless chemicals were being released from aerosol sprays, refrigerators, and air conditioners. In their 1974 paper published in Nature, the two scientists showed that CFCs were depleting the planet's protective stratospheric ozone layer. They found that CFCs rose into the stratosphere, where they were broken apart by powerful ultraviolet rays and released chlorine atoms. The chlorine destroyed the ozone molecules protecting the planet's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Sherry Rowland recognized that the depletion of the ozone layer ``was not just a scientific question, but a potentially grave environmental problem.'' Increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation meant more cases of skin cancer and eye damage, as well as harm to plant and marine life. Sherry Rowland spoke out about this danger to the ozone layer and argued for a ban on CFCs. Over the years, he did hundreds of press interviews and testified before Congress and state legislatures time and time again. Professor Rowland persevered despite efforts to discredit his work. Scientific societies withdrew their invitations for him to speak about his research. And industry attacked him personally. In 1977, the president of one aerosol manufacturing company claimed that criticism of CFCs was ``orchestrated by the Ministry of Disinformation of the KGB.'' But Professor Rowland was ultimately vindicated by both his fellow scientists and the international community. In 1983, a British Antarctic Survey team confirmed the existence of a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. Four years later, the Montreal Protocol was signed. This landmark treaty phased out the production and use of CFCs. The ozone layer is now expected to fully recover around the middle of the century. In 1995, Dr. Rowland received the recognition he deserved when he shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry with Dr. Molina and Dr. Paul Crutzen for their ozone layer work. Sherry Rowland's life stands as a testament to the critical role of scientific discovery in the development of wise and effective government policy. One need only ponder what the world would be like today without the work and voice of Sherry Rowland to appreciate the magnitude of his contributions. Please join me in celebrating the life of Dr. Sherry Rowland, a man who literally helped save the world.