Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The supporters of this bill said they're simply trying to exempt harmless dirt from farms and ranches from regulation under the Clean Air Act. That simply is not the case. This bill is nothing more than a bait-and-switch. The title says it's about farm dust, but in reality, it would exempt air pollution from a number of industrial sources from the entire Clean Air Act, including mines. The bill defines ``nuisance dust'' to include particulate matter, that consists primarily of natural materials generated from sources that include ``earth moving.'' So when you look at that definition, it would allow mines to be exempted from the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This is an egregious overreach that would allow mines to release particulate matter into the air without any controls. The Kennecott, Utah, Copper Mine serves as a perfect example of why this is such a problem. Kennecott Copper operates one of the largest open-pit copper mines in the world, in Utah. The mine is even visible from space. Every day, they mine about 150,000 tons of copper ore and 330,000 tons of waste rock from the Bingham Canyon mine. Kennecott's operations are the single largest source of particulate pollution in Utah. The mine is having a significant impact on air quality, even with the pollution control requirements in place. There is simply no reason, therefore, to say well, we're going to address farm dust by exempting this mine from regulation under the Clean Air Act. And that is what this bill would do. It would exempt all particle pollution from the mine's activities from the entire Clean Air Act. That mine is now subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. They're doing what they need to do to control pollution from that mine. If we adopt this bill, it would allow them to refrain from doing anything other than just simply spewing the pollution. These mining operations, Kennecott and others, can have a significant impact. They emit large quantities of both fine and coarse particulate matter. Yet under this bill, they would be exempt from regulation. So my amendment simply clarifies that this bill does not apply to particle pollution from any mining activities. The science shows that coarse and fine particle pollution, regardless of the source, can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks, stroke, and premature death. That's why I oppose exempting favored sources of this pollution from the Clean Air Act, and that's why I oppose the bill. But at a minimum if we adopt this amendment, we would ensure that the bill is true to its name--the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. Large industrial open-pit mines and gravel mining operations shouldn't get a free pass to pollute under the clever pretense of being involved with farms. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment removing mine operations from coverage under this bill and making sure the bill only covers farming operations. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, farm dust is not the same thing as pollution from a mine. My amendment would exclude pollution from a mine from this legislation so that it stays under EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act, as it is today. There is no reason to give mining operations, whether they're in rural or in urban areas, a pass so that they need not even meet requirements to protect the public from unsafe pollutants that could cause adverse health impacts. I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak on this amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I wanted to say to the gentleman from Arizona that I think his amendment makes a great deal of sense. It complies with what, I think, the EPA ought to do under these exceptional circumstances, and we are prepared to accept his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. WAXMAN. I have several concerns about this amendment, which seems to ignore the reality of how agencies communicate, along with the well- established process for how EPA proposes and finalizes a rule. First of all, this amendment requires the EPA to conduct additional economic analyses for a broad range of agency actions that could affect agriculture, including guidance documents and policy statements. Requiring an expensive and time-consuming detailed economic analysis for every policy statement makes no sense. Secondly, this amendment singles out one favored sector for special treatment. Why should we have an entirely different rulemaking process in place for agriculture? If the Republicans are concerned about the rulemaking process, then they should work with us on a bipartisan basis to improve the way rules are adopted for all sectors, not just one. This amendment also isn't necessary. EPA already has to evaluate the costs and benefits of each rule to satisfy requirements and numerous statutes. When issuing a rule, EPA has to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, specific environmental statutes, Executive orders on regulatory planning and review requirements of the Office of Management and Budget, and others. A few minutes ago, we accepted an amendment from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that called on EPA not to have a burdensome process when they grant a state flexibility in handling an exceptional event that caused a violation, and he argued we didn't need a burdensome process to get to that result. This additional burdensome process imposed by this amendment is also unnecessary. According to the GAO, the requirements already in place are quote, ``clearly voluminous and require a wide range of procedural, consultative, and analytical action on the part of the agencies.'' This amendment appears to ignore this well-established process and, instead, would add another burdensome layer to the already lengthy review. It serves no purpose. It bogs down the agency. It creates more bureaucracy. It costs more money. It does not accomplish anything. And insofar as it accomplishes anything, it just stalls the agency from acting in only one area--agriculture. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as well as oppose the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the EPA goes through an incredible analysis now, the costs and the benefits and all the other considerations. It's appropriate. To add another review of regulations at EPA is to require paralysis by analysis, and perhaps that's the objective of the amendment. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) has said he can't imagine anything more expensive than what this regulation might do to farmers. Well, I'll tell you something that's more expensive: Tax breaks for zillionaires, billionaires, and millionaires is a lot more expensive than requiring EPA to do even more. Let's not burden the agency with reviews only for one sector that add nothing to the analysis that they already achieved before they adopt any regulation. And these regulations that are already in effect now are not costing jobs. This whole bill is supposed to prevent regulations that had not even been adopted. And we're not losing jobs because of that. We're losing jobs because our economy is not functioning, because we don't have a willingness by the Republicans to stimulate this economy, get people back to work and get jobs for those who need them. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2405, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2011. I am pleased to report that this legislation represents a bipartisan effort to make certain that our nation is prepared to successfully manage the effects of natural disasters, infectious disease outbreaks, and acts of bioterrorism. The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act reauthorizes and makes minor--but important--improvements to programs and activities first established in the 2004 Project Bioshield Act and the 2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, also known as PAHPA. Let me highlight three provisions that deserve particular attention. First, with respect to the Food and Drug Administration, we took great care to ensure that the agency is focusing on the medical countermeasures--or products that combat chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear agents--of highest importance. As we all know, if everything is given priority, then nothing is truly a priority. H.R. 2405 requires FDA to work with industry on industry-submitted regulatory management plans for prioritized countermeasures to facilitate scientific exchanges between the FDA and product sponsors to streamline our ability to make these products available. Second, the legislation makes improvements to the nation's blueprint for public health preparedness and response activities that will enhance the ability of the health care system to respond to mass casualty emergencies. Finally, H.R. 2405 continues investment in state and local public health departments to ensure we have the requisite infrastructure to respond to public health threats. I'd like to thank Congressman Rogers and Congressman Green--the sponsors of the legislation--for their hard work on H.R. 2405. I'd also like to recognize Congresswoman Myrick, Congresswoman Eshoo, and Congressman Markey who contributed a great deal to the Committee's work on this bill. I understand that Senator Burr and Senator Casey have recently introduced comparable legislation in the Senate. I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues on this issue and sending final PAHPRA legislation to the President for his signature. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, today, December 7th, is the 70th anniversary of the brutal sneak attack by the Imperial Empire of Japan on Pearl Harbor, which unleashed America's involvement in World War II. Victory over Fascism would come four years later. On this day recalling Pearl Harbor, the House Republicans are bringing to the floor their own sneak attack on America's government, and how it works to protect the safety, security, health and welfare of the American people. We already have in place today an effective mechanism by which Congress can overturn regulations by government agencies that are judged to be unjustified, overly broad, too harsh, excessively expensive or not in the public interest. There is in place today a court of appeal for bad regulations. That process is called the Congressional Review Act, and it provides expedited consideration by Congress of a measure to veto an offending rule. If Members of Congress have issues with regulatory overreach by an agency, there is a constitutional remedy in place today to stop that agency. Moreover, Congress can pass limits on the agency funding to curtail unwise activities. But that is not enough for the House Republicans. They want to cripple the Executive Branch and its regulatory agencies altogether. They do so in this bill, by changing the burden of proof in the ability of agencies to develop and implement rules that are developed, in the first instance, pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. These are not rogue agencies; they are implementing policy and directives that Congress has passed and the President has signed into law. But H.R. 10 says that no major rule can become law unless and until Congress passes--and the President signs--a joint resolution approving the specific regulation. In other words, nothing happens unless Congress says it is OK--and that means nothing will happen. Congress is an institution where we cannot even pass all the individual bills funding the government by the start of the fiscal year. The last time that happened was in 1994, and it has happened only three times since 1948. With that track record, it is not credible to assert that Congress can process hundreds of major rules by government agencies in a timely fashion. The deadlock that we see in Congress this year will become perpetual gridlock for the functioning of the Executive Branch and independent regulatory agencies. One suspects, in fact, that this is the true intent of those supporting H.R. 10: to destroy the workings of our government. And it is for this reason that I wholeheartedly oppose this bill. No special interest should be powerful enough to eclipse the public interest--but this bill lets the special interests who are being regulated win every time. If this bill were law, all of the historic legislation we passed into law during the Obama presidency would be vulnerable to re-litigation by powerful special interests as agencies work to put into place the rules to implement those laws. Just this year alone, at risk would be rules that prevent health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions; rules that ban the marketing of tobacco products to children; rules that improve toy safety and reduce lead in products; and rules that require higher fuel economy standards for cars and reduce mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants. These are the protections the authors of H.R. 10--and their corporate backers--want to stop. I believe profoundly that government is a positive force that serves its people--and this is what H.R. 10 is really attacking. This is why H.R. 10 is so offensive to our constitutional system. In the great debate over the size and scope and role of government-- which is a very legitimate and important discussion--the rhetoric from the Republicans that has gained the most traction is that regulations from Washington are ``job killers,'' and that these agencies must be stopped before they kill more jobs again. But this is a lie. David Brooks, a very conservative columnist, assessed these issues this week in the New York Times: Over the past 40 years, small business leaders have eloquently complained about the regulatory burden. And they are right to. But it's not clear that regulations are a major contributor to the current period of slow growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics asks companies why they have laid off workers. Only 13 percent said regulations were a major factor. That number has not increased in the past few years. According to the bureau, roughly 0.18 percent of the mass layoffs in the first half of 2011 were attributable to regulations. Some of the industries that are the subject of the new rules, like energy and health care, have actually been doing the most hiring. If new regulations were eating into business, we'd see a slip in corporate profits. We are not. There are two large lessons here. First, Republican candidates can say they will deregulate and, in some areas, that would be a good thing. But it will not produce a short- term economic rebound because regulations are not a big factor in our short-term problems. Second, it is easy to be cynical about politics and to say that Washington is a polarized cesspool. And it's true that the interest groups and the fund-raisers make every disagreement seem like a life-or-death struggle. But, in reality, most people in government are trying to find a balance between difficult trade-offs. Whether it's antiterrorism policy or regulatory policy, most substantive disagreements are within the 40 yard lines. Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of us would like. They are not tanking the economy. H.R. 10 is a dangerous bill. It is a direct attack on how our government works to protect the public interest. It is based on a completely false premise. H.R. 10, a bill to veto regulations, deserves its own special veto by Congress and, if necessary, by the President of the United States.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Synthetic Drug Control Act adds specified synthetic versions of drugs of abuse to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These designer drugs generally mimic the effects of marijuana or of stimulants and can be unsafe, causing convulsions, anxiety attacks, dangerously elevated heart rates, and bizarre and dangerous behavior, among other conditions. Under current authority, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has difficulty taking action against these drugs because they fall outside existing statutory descriptions of Schedule I drugs. H.R. 1254 will enable DEA to take appropriate enforcement actions to get them off the street and away from our Nation's youth. I therefore believe it is critical that we deal with the threat these drugs pose. I wish to note however that I have concerns with the basic underlying statute that would now apply to these listed substances through this legislation. In particular, I do not support the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Controlled Substances Act for Schedule I drugs, provisions that under this legislation will apply to the listed synthetic drugs as they apply to all Schedule I drugs. Mandatory minimum sentencing inappropriately applies a one size fits all approach, eliminating the ability of judges to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate sentence in light of individual circumstances. The sentencing judge is in the best position to determine a fair sentence, having considered all of the evidence and having heard from the parties and the defendant. I also believe that the administrative process for scheduling controlled substances should be improved, so that the Attorney General, with the help of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, can make scheduling decisions without resorting to help from Congress. I do not know whether such improvement requires legislation or regulation. I do know, however, that it is rarely a good idea for Congress to make scientific determinations such as are required to make good scheduling decisions. Additionally, I believe it is incumbent upon DEA to reevaluate the recordkeeping and other regulatory requirements it imposes upon scientists who use controlled substances for legitimate research. The agency should ensure that such research is not impeded or discouraged through unnecessarily onerous requirements. I recognize that it is not a simple task to strike the right balance, to exercise enough control to discourage abuse but not so much as to discourage research that may lead to important therapeutic advances and treatments. I intend to send a letter to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart asking for a report on the restrictions imposed upon researchers, particularly those in academia who work with amounts of scheduled substances too small to pose a serious risk of diversion. I would like to know what if any improvements can be effected to eliminate or modify those requirements whose costs in time and resources outweigh their potential benefits in hindering research scientists from becoming drug abusers. I hope the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and others will join me on the letter. Finally, however, while I remain concerned about aspects of the underlying statute, the question before us is whether these substances should be controlled as would be accomplished through passage of this legislation. I believe the answer is yes, because of the danger to public health posed by the listed synthetic drugs.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in unqualified support of extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. The United States is a great nation. We're a great nation because we are the land of opportunity. We're a great nation because we are the home of the American Dream, where hard work and playing by the rules have always equaled success. But the United States is also a great nation because we assist our fellow citizens in need--those who have fallen on hard times and through no fault of their own are in need of a safety net. An out-of-control Wall Street and the reckless deregulation pursued by the Bush Administration brought us the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Tens of millions of American's lost their jobs, and fourteen million still are unemployed today. Forty-five percent of those unemployed have been out of work for six-months or more. Every day, I hear from constituents that lost their job during the great recession and have been struggling to get by. From one constituent: I have been unemployed for almost 2 years. Never in my 51 years of life have I ever experienced anything like this. I submit resumes via Craigslist daily, I network and I have done whatever I can to get back to work. I will be homeless if [unemployment] benefits are not extended. And another: I'd really like to know if there's another unemployment benefits extension in the works. I am 53, with no family, and no car that I can live in, but I will lose my apartment if I can't find a job . . . or get more benefits. It's no secret that jobs are VERY hard to come by, and I've had a really good work history, but that means nothing right now. And another: I have sent out hundreds of resumes, both for positions in my field, and for positions I knew I could do, or have done when I was just starting out. I have received less than ten acknowledgements of receipt of my resume over the course of 21 months. My background and education are solid. And another: My job as CFO of a small restaurant chain, headquartered in Santa Monica, was eliminated in Dec. 2010. Since then I have been unable to find employment and, as a result, had to sell my condo at a considerable financial loss. I have been surviving through the extended unemployment program offered by the federal government. If this program is not renewed, I have no idea how I will cope, financially, or mentally. And another: I'm 63, was let go from a very significant position back in February 2008 after eight years of being a Multi Award Winning Sales Executive, in two industries . . . in working over 40 years without interruption I have been collecting unemployment benefits for two years. I'm embarrassed to tell you how many resumes and contacts I've made, competing with men and women in their 20's, 30's, 40's. This has taken a huge toll on my life as you can imagine . . . my condo is for sale and I'm being audited by the IRS . . . my health has deteriorated and I didn't have health insurance for the past two years. For too many Americans, unemployment benefits are the difference between having a roof over their head, or sleeping on the street; having food to feed their kids, or skipping dinner; seeing a doctor, or living with chronic illness. As a great nation, we have an obligation to provide a lifeline to these fellow citizens. It is incumbent on us a decent society. I have cosponsored legislation to extend unemployment insurance through the end of 2012. I have also cosponsored legislation to help the so-called ``99-ers,'' by extending the length of federal benefits by an addition 14 weeks, to 113 weeks total. But Congress must do more. My constituents need more than a safety net. They need jobs. According to a recent report by the Washington Post, this Republican House is on track to be least productive first session in 20 years. In a full year, Republicans have yet to pass a single bill to create a single job. The Republicans' refusal to take up measures to help restart our economy--like President Obama's American Jobs Act--is all the more reason that we must extend these essential unemployment benefits. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the unemployed Americans who are facing catastrophe through no fault of their own and vote now to extend this critical lifeline.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep concern over the plight of an American citizen overseas. Today marks two years that Alan Gross, a 62-year old international development specialist who has worked for over two decades helping people in troubled areas across the globe, has been held in a Cuban prison. For the first fourteen months of his captivity, Mr. Gross was held without charge. In February of this year, he was charged with ``acts to undermine the integrity and independence'' of the State, then given a two-day trial and sentenced to 15 years in prison, his appeal denied. Mr. Gross was in Cuba on behalf of USAID. He was there to help the country's small Jewish community establish an intranet and improve its access to the internet. His presence and actions were not meant to pose a threat or danger to the Cuban government. Since being incarcerated, he has lost approximately 100 pounds, his health is deteriorating, and two immediate family members, his mother and daughter, have been diagnosed with cancer. His 15-year sentence is absurd, and his continuing incarceration is inhumane. I urge my colleagues to join me in requesting that the Cuban government release Mr. Gross on humanitarian grounds as quickly as is possible.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need to do in this House as this legislative year draws to a close is to further the corrupting influence of special interest money in presidential campaigns. But this is what the Republican leadership is determined to do. Last January, the House Republicans stampeded one part of this bill through the House--provisions that terminate the system of public funding of presidential campaigns that was established in the wake of the infamous Watergate scandals, under Richard Nixon's presidency, nearly 40 years ago. It's not enough to pass this bill once--the Republicans insist we pass it again today. It is not enough that virtually unlimited amounts of private money can now slosh through our political system--over $280 million last year alone, thanks to the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court last year--we have to pass a bill that asphyxiates the supply of public money in our presidential campaigns. The Republicans are also practicing gross hypocrisy. While this bill ends public financing of presidential campaigns, the Republican Party is seeking $18 million in public funding to support their nominating convention next year. Everyone knows that this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and would be vetoed by the President--because it is a corruption of good government. But that does not impede the Republican leadership in the House today. Rather than work with us on real legislation that would deliver real jobs, real investment and real growth to the American economy, the House Republicans would rather waste our time and continue to deliver nothing to the American people. To treat our democracy so cavalierly is disgraceful; to persist in policies that, should they ever become law, will result in the complete privatization of the political process by monied special interests, is shameful. The other part of this bill would eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, which was established in the wake of the 2000 election debacle in Florida. Its mission is to ensure that elections are conducted properly, with assistance that promotes voter registration, trained poll workers, and access to the polls by disabled Americans. There is no justification for terminating this small agency, which helps ensure our democracy works as intended. The American people, and our democratic processes, deserve far better than this legislation in the House today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am unalterably opposed to this proposed Constitutional amendment. President Obama stated it succinctly earlier this year: ``We won't need a constitutional amendment to do our job.'' He is right. President Clinton and Congress enjoyed balanced budgets in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The proponents of this deeply flawed and highly dangerous tampering with our Constitution are dead wrong. All that is needed is the responsible exercise of choices about our budget. This proposed constitutional amendment fails on several counts: First and foremost, the proposed amendment does not pass the truth in labeling test. There is nothing in it that requires Congress, under any and all conditions, to pass a balanced budget. Under the voting procedures that are established, Congress can pass an unbalanced budget. Second, there is a dangerous tampering with the fundamental principle of majority rule in the House of Representatives. Today, the majority rules in votes on the budget. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, it will require a three-fifths (60%) vote of the House to pass a budget that is not in balance. The last thing the United States House of Representatives needs is to become more like the United States Senate in its rules for voting on legislation. We need coherence, not paralysis. We elect a President with a majority of the Electoral College. We should certainly be permitted to pass a budget through a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives--just as we do today. That's democracy. This proposed constitutional amendment is undemocratic. Third, this amendment, by requiring a three-fifths vote in the House to approve any increase in the public debt limit, guarantees an annual repeat of the debacle we experienced this summer. Our debt goes up--or down--based on spending and tax decisions previously taken by Congress. The debt that exists is simply an expression of spending and tax bills already enacted into law. Increasing the public debt should therefore be a simple, technical legislative act. By imposing a supermajority requirement on any increase in the public debt, this guarantees that we will face a recurring risk of default on the full faith and credit of the United States. This summer, we saw fear spread in households across America, and havoc in markets worldwide, out of grave concern over what a default would mean. This amendment would cement such instability into the Constitution itself. To perpetuate uncertainty over whether the United States will default on its obligation is dangerous and irresponsible. Fourth, this so-called balance budget amendment is, at its heart, a fraud. Section 7 of the proposed amendment provides that the budget is deemed in balance when outlays match receipts--except for revenues derived from borrowing and outlays of interest payments on the national debt. In other words, carrying the national debt does not count. This is not a balanced budget, as payment of the debt will require trillions in spending on interest for decades to come. Even under the draconian Republican budget plan adopted earlier this year by the House, the budget, with all its harsh cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, would not approach being truly balanced until the 2030s or later. The House Republicans may want the American people to think this is a vote on a balanced budget constitutional amendment. What they are not telling you up front is that the United States budget will be in deficit for decades even if this becomes part of the Constitution. The American people should not be fooled. Fifth, this amendment will gravely injure our seniors, and those who rely on Medicare and Medicaid. This amendment will require cuts at least as harsh as those rammed through the House by the Republicans earlier this year. This will mean the end of Medicare as we know it, and it will be devastating for Medicare beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the Republican budget, by privatizing Medicare, will more than double beneficiary costs for new enrollees. The average senior will face increased costs of over $6,000 annually when the program begins. And all of that extra spending by seniors and people with disabilities will go to private health insurance plans. The transfer of seniors into private plans will raise costs by over $11,000 per beneficiary by 2030. To add insult to injury, the Republican budget reopens the donut hole under the Part D prescription drug benefit, increasing the burden on seniors within 5 years. For Medicaid, the Republican budget approved by the House was even worse. Medicaid accounts for 43% of total long term care spending in the U.S. But the Republican budget cuts Medicaid in half by 2022, and turns it into a block grant for the states. Moreover, by cutting reimbursement rates, Medicaid will lose health providers. At least 18 million people will be cut off from access to Medicaid. There will be a loss of quality and staffing in nursing homes--which means job losses in the health professions--as well as cuts to programs that provide in- home services to keep seniors independent. There are other deep flaws in this proposal. The amendment puts our ability to respond to national crisis in a straightjacket. Section 5 of the proposed amendment permits an absolute majority of the House to vote to waive the balanced budget requirement if we are at war. But if we face an economic emergency--like we do today--the balanced budget requirement can only be waived by a three-fifths vote of the House. The economic crisis we face today is at least as significant as the Iraq war--but this amendment would make it harder to respond to recession and unemployment. Also troubling is the prospect that the courts will become involved in budgets passed by Congress. By placing the budget under a specific constitutional amendment, it is likely that the courts could be asked to rule on whether a budget, as passed, complies with the requirements of the constitutional amendment. Is it really balanced? If this amendment is passed, we head down a dangerous legal road. Madam Speaker, this week, 273 organizations representing health, welfare, labor, public advocacy and community groups across the Nation, have written to the Congress to insist that we reject this balanced budget constitutional amendment. Their letter states: A balanced budget constitutional amendment would damage the economy, not strengthen it. Demanding that policymakers cut spending and/or raise taxes, even when the economy slows, is the opposite of what is needed to stabilize a weak economy and avert recessions. Such steps would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or worsening an ongoing downturn, costing large numbers of jobs while blocking worthy investments to stimulate jobs and growth and address the nation's urgent needs in infrastructure and other areas . . . A balanced budget amendment has no place in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution has served the nation well because it represents enduring principles that are the foundations of our government. It should not be used as a substitute for real leadership on fiscal policy. We do not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We do not need to turn the House into the Senate. We do not need to impose inhumane cuts on the most vulnerable in our society. And we do not need to ruin the fabric of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. I share the view of many Californians that states have a responsibility to enact commonsense measures to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of children, criminals and individuals with a history of serious mental illness. I am appalled that this bill would supersede reasonable state standards and subject California to weaker and oftentimes dangerous gun laws of other states. As the leading Democrats on the Judiciary Committee stated in their dissenting views to this bill: H.R. 822, the `National Right-to-Carry Re- ciprocity Act of 2011,' is a dangerous bill that would override the laws of almost every state by obliging each to accept concealed handgun carry permits from every other state, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in the state where he or she is traveling. The law tramples federalism and endangers public safety. For example, in California, we believe--and it is the law--that if you're a convicted sex offender, you should lose your right to own a gun. But under this bill, an individual in California convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery could carry a firearm. In California, it is the law that gun owners should have some basic training to ensure guns are stored safely and away from children. But under this bill, individuals with no knowledge of how to handle a firearm could keep and carry a gun in California. In California, we believe--and it is the law--that gun owners should have a clean criminal record. But under this bill, a man convicted of multiple counts of domestic violence could walk the streets of California with a concealed handgun. This is not a trivial issue. In January 2008, a Florida man, Michael Leopold Phillips, killed his wife and then turned the gun on himself, committing suicide. Mr. Phillips had a long history of spousal abuse; he had been arrested on three occasions for domestic violence, and an ex-wife had issued a restraining order against him years earlier. But Florida has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country, and Mr. Phillips was granted a concealed carry permit by the state even though he had documented history of abusing women. I believe that California should have every right, with the full force of our laws behind them, to keep guns out of the hands of people like Mr. Phillips. The Republican leadership likes to preach its fidelity to the overarching principle of states' rights--but this bill shows their fidelity to states' rights is subject to a test of political convenience. When it comes to a state's right to decide how to protect its citizens from gun violence, the Republican leadership has ceded its principles to the gun lobby. This bill is an affront to federalism and an assault on public safety. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this legislation. I think Mr. Markey made an articulate case and a compelling case. If we expect European companies to comply with U.S. laws when they do business in our country, whether the EU countries agree with our laws or not, we have to respect their laws. But this bill, H.R. 2594, prohibits U.S. airlines from complying with the laws of the European Union. Worldwide aviation is estimated to produce about 3 percent of the total manmade greenhouse gas emissions--and these emissions are rising rapidly. In an effort to address aviation's uncontrolled contribution to climate change, the EU has adopted a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation sector. The EU program sets modest and achievable emission limits, it is flexible and market-oriented, and there is no viable alternative approach based on regulating only those emissions that occur in a country's own airspace. The EU program also should benefit U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers such as Boeing and Pratt & Whitney, which are building more efficient engines today. The program will encourage airlines to purchase new aircraft with lower fuel costs, boosting the economy and potentially saving consumers money. As a matter of fact, I just got off a plane today from the European Union, and I would hate to think that when I travel on an American airline they will not respect the laws of the European Union or the European Union might decide they don't have to respect our laws. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, was passed to protect the public health and the environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. It created duties reserved to the EPA and programs that could be delegated to the States. Like other environmental statutes, RCRA sets a legal standard of protectiveness for State-delegated programs. These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a State's effort measures up, and they ensure our consistent level of effort and protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom among the States in which a State willing to have the laxest protections becomes the dumping ground for the Nation. Congress has taken this approach for 40 years. We create a Federal floor of protection and allow States to go further as necessary. H.R. 2273 turns this approach on its head by saying that each State must have a program but that program can offer as little protection as the State chooses. Well, that's essentially the status quo. The authors of this bill are attempting to model coal ash disposal on disposal of municipal solid waste. That's what they claim. In the case of municipal solid waste, however, the legal standard is that the program must protect human health and the environment from the risks associated with municipal solid waste. But under this bill, this standard does not apply to coal combustion residuals. If we want to hold State coal ash permit programs to that standard, the same standard to which State municipal solid waste permit programs are held, my amendment is the way to do it. Without this amendment, nothing in the bill ensures that permit programs, whether administered by the States or the EPA, will protect human health and the environment. They will not even have that as a goal. Under the existing language, a State could put in place an insufficient program, one that threatens human health, and so long as they follow the required certification, they will meet their legal requirements. There would be no way for the public, for affected communities, or for the EPA to intervene to ensure the necessary safeguards. If we adopt this amendment, State plans will have to protect human health and the environment from the risks of unsafe coal ash disposal. These are serious risks that this legislation should address. For example, groundwater has been contaminated from coal ash disposal in Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Indiana, North Dakota, and the list goes on. Fugitive dust from coal ash disposal has impacted neighboring communities; for instance, toxic dust has blown through people's homes in Gambrills, Maryland, harming the respiratory health of the public, and risks from the catastrophic failure of wet impoundments as serious as we saw in Kingston, Tennessee. When EPA issued its proposed rules in June 2010, they cited more than two dozen proven cases of damage from coal ash disposal. Three of those sites are now on the national priority list for cleanup under Superfund, and the number of these incidents may be much higher. These risks are real and they are significant. If this legislation is going to address them, it needs to include a legal standard of protectiveness. If my amendment is adopted, State programs will be required to protect human health and the environment. And if a State refuses to do so, when EPA steps in, the agency will have to implement a program that protects public health and the environment. It's a simple amendment, but it's the difference between trying to protect health and the environment and trying to protect the status quo. I heard from my colleague and good friend from Texas saying the bill was better and the legislative process is not always to get to the perfect but to get a better bill. Well, it depends on what you consider good enough. This bill is not good enough. With this amendment, it will definitely be improved. But it's not good enough to vote for a bill because it's better than it was when it wasn't good enough then. It's better to vote ``no'' and say ``no'' to a bill that's not good enough so you can get a better bill. And I think in the other body we'll get a better bill if we are willing to vote against this bill, say ``no'' until we get not the perfect bill, but a much better bill than what the proponents of this bill are saying is good enough, because I don't accept that conclusion. I urge support for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the assault on the environment in this body continues. Two weeks ago the House voted to repeal the health standards in the Clean Air Act and block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic emissions from power plants. Earlier this week, we voted to block EPA from regulating toxic emissions from cement plants. And yesterday we voted to block the EPA from regulating toxic emissions from incinerators. Today we'll vote on whether to stop EPA from regulating toxic coal ash. On December 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge, blanketing the Emory River and the surrounding land and creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up. Last year, EPA proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight of coal ash impoundments in order to prevent disasters like the one in Kingston and to prevent groundwater and drinking water from the threat of contamination. Today we are voting to stop EPA from acting. The agency had proposed two alternatives for regulating coal combustion residuals: One proposal was to regulate these wastes under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, as a hazardous waste. The other proposal was to regulate under subtitle D of RCRA as a nonhazardous solid waste. Under both proposals, there would be a minimum Federal standard developed to protect human health and the environment. Those standards would address wet impoundments, like in Kingston, and would also ensure that basic controls like the use of liners, groundwater monitoring, and dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness. But the legislation that is being brought to the floor today blocks both of these EPA proposals. It replaces those proposals with an ineffective program that won't ensure the safe disposal of coal ash. At hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard testimony about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion waste can cause. We learned of contaminated drinking water supplies, of ruined property values. We've learned about improper disposal of coal ash presenting catastrophic risks from ruptures of containment structures and causing cancer and other illnesses from long-term exposure to leaking chemicals. But this legislation does not reflect what we learned about the dangers of improper disposal of coal ash. Under each of our environmental laws--until the Republicans repeal them--Congress has established a legal standard when delegating programs to the States. That was done, by the way, on bipartisan votes. These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a State's efforts measure up. They ensure a minimum level of effort and protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom by the States. But this legislation does not include any legal standard at all to establish a minimum level of safety. As a result, the public can have little confidence that this legislation, if enacted, will result in increased safety. And to the extent new safety requirements are established, nearly all of them can be waived at a State's discretion. This legislation appears to create a new program for the safe disposal of coal ash. But the decisions of whether or not to provide a safe disposal or whether or not to protect groundwater or whether or not to protect against toxic dust blowing off disposal sites will remain State decisions. There will be no minimum Federal health standard. The result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules by the States. Some States will do a good job, others will do a poor job. And when they do a poor job, the public will pay the price--just as they do today. If this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. This bill will not protect communities living near these waste disposal sites. It won't make high-risk impoundments of coal ash safe. It won't stop contamination of drinking water. And it won't create jobs. In fact, it won't do much of anything. Like the cement and incinerator bills that the House has debated, this bill also violates the discretionary CutGo. CBO found the legislation will cost EPA $2 million over the next 5 years. This cost is not offset in the legislation. So once again, for the third time in 2 weeks, the Republicans are abandoning their discretionary CutGo rule. This legislation is deficient in both process and substance, and I urge all Members to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, at this point I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I just want to say to my good friends who feel that we've got to move the bill forward and we've got to get a better bill, I understand that, and this bill is going to move forward. But for those who really want a good bill, we're not getting one out of this House. It's better to vote ``no'' to show that you want a better bill than to vote ``yes'' for the small changes that the Republicans have given to some of our Democrats that may improve the bill on the margins, but the bill is not good enough for an ``aye'' vote. I still urge Members to vote ``no.'' At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.