Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, since before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, experts have been concerned about the vulnerability of chemical plants to attack. These facilities hold large stores of industrial chemicals which pose a safety and security risk to the American people if they are released or detonated. A recent report found that more than 134 million Americans live in the vulnerability zones around chemical facilities. I have such a facility in my district, which is a very serious concern for the surrounding community. These risks have not been adequately addressed, and this bill falls short of what is needed. The version of the bill before us now also includes a significant and unvetted change to the program that could make many high risk chemical facilities less secure. The self- certification provisions have not been evaluated in hearings or piloted. I am concerned about these provisions and I caution my colleagues that their implementation will require close oversight from Congress. But this bill is a step forward. For far too long, this important program has been authorized in the appropriations process for the Department of Homeland Security. During last year's government shutdown, the authority for this program lapsed. Looking ahead to next Congress, the risk of another lapse is too great. When we voted on a previous version of this bill in July, I expressed my hope that the Senate could improve the legislation to strengthen this important program. On some issues, the Senate was successful. The bill now includes an expanded role for workers and labor unions in developing site security plans and some important whistleblower protections. However, this bill would leave significant problems in the underlying program in place. The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program at the Department of Homeland Security has not been successful. The original rider that created the program blocked effective enforcement, leading to a lack of compliance. We saw the dangers of noncompliance when the West Fertilizer Company facility in West, Texas, exploded. Unfortunately, those limitations on enforcement would be preserved by this bill. The original statute blocked the Department from requiring measures to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, and in the process created serious obstacles to disapproving site security plans that failed to meet the program's standards. This led to an approval process so complicated that it took more than five years for the Department to complete its review of the first facility. This bill preserves those obstacles. Both of these challenges may be complicated further by the new self- certification program. I expect this bill to pass today, and I welcome this step forward. But I call upon all of my colleagues who will be here in the next Congress to continue the important oversight of this program to provide the American people with the protection they expect and deserve.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Pallone, for recognizing me and for acknowledging the fact that I am the ranking member at the present time, but, of course, you will now take on that job very ably, I am sure, and both of us will follow in the tradition of John Dingell. Mr. Speaker, it is so appropriate that the room where the Energy and Commerce Committee meets is now known as the ``John Dingell Room.'' John Dingell has been the leader of that committee and a leader in the Congress longer than anybody else has served in either the Senate or in the House; yet, what I want to say is from my own personal perspective. I have served on that committee for 40 years, and I have learned more from John Dingell than I have from anybody else I have served with as a colleague. There were times when we had disagreements, and we argued them out and then resolved them and compromised on them; but most of the time, he was a stalwart defender of the interests of the working people of this country, a protector of the environment, a person who led the efforts for civil rights, a man who cared about people and understood that government had a very important role to play in people's lives. From his father, who was active in the New Deal, under President Franklin Roosevelt, who led this Nation to use the government in a positive way--to help people who had nowhere else to turn--John Dingell carried on that tradition. It is the Liberal-Progressive tradition, and I associate myself with it. I learned everything I knew as a member of the committee--and I learned everything I knew as a potential chairman and as a short-term chairman--from John Dingell. He is a Member's Member, and he is going to go down in the history books as one of the outstanding Members of Congress and leaders and chairmen of the oldest committee in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I know we don't have a lot of time, so I just want to say to John Dingell: I wish you all the best, and I know you will whisper to Debbie, if she has any questions, the right course to take. Of course, she has been with you long enough that she probably, by this time, will know what to do on her own. God bless you, John Dingell.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound appreciation to the constituents of the 33rd Congressional District of California. It has been a tremendous privilege for me to serve as their representative in Congress for forty years. While the numbers and boundaries of the district have changed four times, generous constituent support has given me latitude to pursue comprehensive solutions to problems that not only benefit us in the district, but benefit our nation as a whole. It also has been extremely gratifying for me to have the opportunity to assist individuals and families on a more personal level, from helping reunify families more quickly, to getting Section 8 housing vouchers more efficiently, expediting Social Security and Medicare benefits, cutting red tape to ensure military heroes receive the medals they've earned, and fast-tracking veterans' health care, housing and other benefits. I am grateful for the support of committed allies in our community who have helped me tackle problems such as safety and pollution at Santa Monica Airport, helicopter noise, veteran homelessness, attempts to commercialize the West LA VA property, traffic gridlock, beach pollution, and so many more. Of course these challenges remain and new ones will emerge, but I have full confidence in the ability of Representative-Elect Ted Lieu to successfully tackle them. It has been an honor to work with some of the finest elected state and local officials in the nation. I thank my colleagues in the cities of the 33rd Congressional District, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and the California State Legislature for fiercely advocating on behalf of our constituents and working closely with me on federal policies that affect our State. I have had a long career and an eventful one--and I wouldn't trade any of it. I woke each day looking forward to opportunities to make our country stronger, healthier, and fairer. I will always be grateful for this opportunity and privilege and for the many friendships I've forged over the last forty years.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great humanitarian and philanthropist, Monty Hall. Monty Hall is widely known for his iconic work in daytime television, but what many Americans don't know is that he has spent his life engaged in philanthropic work. Monty Hall has traveled extensively throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe and raised an estimated $1 billion for charities. He has been honored with more than 500 awards for his tireless work. In 1975, Monty Hall was elected President of the world's largest children's charity, Variety Clubs International, and in 1981 he was honored with the lifetime title of International Chairman. In 1988, he was awarded the prestigious Order of Canada for his humanitarian works around the world. In 2002, he was inducted into the Order of Manitoba. For the past 35 years, he has hosted the annual Monty Hall/Cedars-Sinai Tennis Tournament to benefit the Diabetes Center and Pancreatic Cancer Program. It is a tribute to Monty Hall's commitment that the children's wings of four hospitals--UCLA Medical Center, Hahnemann Hospital in Philadelphia, Mount Sinai in Toronto, and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore-- all bear his name. Monty Hall has received honorary doctorates from the University of Manitoba, Haifa University in Israel, and Hahnemann Medical College. He and Marilyn, his beloved wife of 66 years, have three children and five grandchildren. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Monty Hall for his tremendous contributions, which have made lives better for countless individuals in our nation and around the world.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ralph Hall, particularly for his earlier years in the House of Representatives when he was a Democrat. He came on the Energy and Commerce Committee early. We sometimes think about Democrats and Republicans. He became a Republican. He had been a conservative Democrat. Everybody on both sides of the aisle held him in the highest respect because he was a man of integrity and honesty. When he gave you his word, you could count on it. Ralph and I became friends. I hope that friendship will continue into the future. I want to express to him, his constituents, and his family and friends my admiration for him as a person and my respect for him as a legislator. I know it is common to say that even though we didn't agree on all things, it didn't make any difference. He always tried to do what he thought was right. As a result, he earned my respect and that of everyone else.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't take long for anyone to recognize that the Congress depends on staff people to get most of its work done. Members speak and Members vote, but much of what we say is researched for us by staff and many of our votes are based on advice and counsel we get from our staff. I have been in Congress for 40 years now. For 36 of those years, I have had the great good fortune to be advised and counseled by Karen Nelson, my chief health staff person. Much of what we have accomplished in health during that time has been because of her. First, she knows the field. For three decades, she has been directly involved in every public health and health finance law that has passed this House. She's a living reference work for details about everything from Medicaid rates to pharmaceutical trials to tobacco advertising to health exchanges. She also provides the institutional memory on the origins of these laws as well as the alternatives and amendments that were considered in their passage. She is, however, much more than an encyclopedia of health policy. She is also intuitive about issues. I have seen her be briefed on an issue that was altogether new to her and immediately hone in on the central problem. She can hear disparate facts and figures and then pick out the common thread. She has often learned of a policy roadblock and quickly found a way over, under, around or through it. And, fundamentally, she is wise. When politics and politicians come to a stalemate, she can find a fair compromise. When egos and pride get in the way, she can find a way for everyone to save face. And when a policy is unfair, inequitable, or just wrong, she has the courage of her convictions to say so. This is not to say that Karen spends all her life at the office. I've seen her walk out of members' meetings to go to a basketball game of her beloved Wizards. I know that if I have a weekend night free that Karen will have seen every movie in town and will have a review for me. As hard as she works, she also manages to enjoy her free time, too. I have been the beneficiary of Karen Nelson's life and work for decades. So has the Commerce Committee. So has this House. And so have millions of children, poor people, elderly people, and all Americans. Most of them don't know--and will never know--what she's done for them, but I wanted to take this moment to tell my colleagues and to thank her.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Whitfield mentioned that the National Association of Clean Air Agencies would like timely implementation guidance. That is true. But just yesterday, they wrote a letter making clear they oppose this bill. I insert in the Record the letter that came under the signature of S. William Becker, National Association of Clean Air Agencies. National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Washington, DC, November 19, 2014. Hon. Ed Whitfield, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Whitfield: At a hearing before the House Rules Committee earlier this week, you spoke in support of H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act. In your testimony, you seemed to imply that the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) favors passage of this legislation. I am writing to clarify that NACAA has never expressed support for H.R. 4795. Although we appreciate the Committee's desire to encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue implementation guidance for new and revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in a timely manner, we do not believe that public health should be sacrificed in promoting that goal. Many of our members are very concerned by the provision in Section 3 of the bill that would allow facilities seeking pre-construction permits to conduct air quality analyses based on outdated air quality standards, should EPA fail to issue implementation guidance concurrently with the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. They believe this would likely cause substantial adverse health impacts and undermine public confidence in permitting programs that were designed to protect public health. In addition, agencies have expressed concern that the bill could cause unnecessary regulatory uncertainty, as well as unfairly shift the burden of reducing emissions to existing facilities, where it is far less cost-effective to do so. Accordingly, NACAA cannot support this legislation. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, S. William Becker.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, subsection 3(b) creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality standards. This means more pollution will enter the air, and it will be harder to clean up. When one facility is allowed to pollute more, other facilities in the area will have to invest more to reduce their emissions. That is not fair. That is not good for the economy. This loophole harms public health, burdens existing facilities, and creates regulatory uncertainty. If one is unwilling to remove the loophole from the bill entirely, then we should at the very least give State and local permitting authorities the opportunity to opt out, and that is what this amendment does. We know States have concerns about this provision. We heard strong concerns from the State of Delaware at the hearing on this bill. In my own State of California, the California Air Resources Board wrote to the committee last week to express their serious concerns about this legislation, and this provision in particular. CARB wrote that ``the provisions proposed in this bill would not increase efficiency, would result in additional delays in permitting, and would pose increased public health risks.'' They, in other words, made two key points. First of all, CARB explained that States don't need EPA guidance to issue permits under a new air quality standard. They said, ``For decades, permitting authorities have successfully implemented their programs in response to every new standard U.S. EPA has promulgated. In fact, permitting agencies have historically been the advisers to U.S. EPA on the guidance that it ultimately issues.'' They point out that the bill effectively requires EPA to issue `` `one size fits all' permit guidance that could not realistically take into account the uniqueness of every jurisdiction.'' CARB also explained that in regions with severe air quality issues, barring the States from issuing permits consistent with new, more health-protective air quality standards will ``result in unnecessary delays and public health risks.'' CARB highlighted that ``this is particularly an issue for vulnerable and already overburdened populations, such as in disadvantaged communities.'' All of California's San Joaquin Valley is in extreme non-attainment for air quality standards. This bill threatens the flexibility needed by the regional air pollution control district, the flexibility that has led to 2013 being the cleanest year on record in this region. This bill would take a step backward in that progress. Let's not make State air pollution regulators' jobs harder by constraining their flexibility and imposing counterproductive requirements. At least let's give them a choice. The amendment simply says, if a Federal, State, local, or tribal agency determines that adopting this loophole will increase air pollution that harms human health, slow issuance of permits, increase regulatory uncertainty, create new regulation, shift the burden of pollution control to small businesses and other existing facilities, or increase the cost of achieving breathable air, then that agency may opt out. The agency does not have to issue a permit that exempts a new facility from meeting protective air quality standards. If you don't think the bill's Clean Air Act loophole will cause these problems, then States wouldn't opt out, and you shouldn't object to this amendment. But just in case the States we have heard from are correct, let's provide a safety hatch to make sure that we aren't harming public health and making air pollution permitting more difficult. I have heard my colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, say over and over again, We don't need one size fits all. We need to let localities make some of these determinations. And I agree, in this case particularly, that if they see, given their circumstances, a reason why they don't want to follow this new regime that would be created by this legislation, let them opt out. Let them decide at the local level how to proceed. For that reason, I urge passage of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of my colleague from California (Mr. McNerney), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 1 minute just for clarification for the Record.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the reason I qualified it is because I see no reason to oppose the amendment. It is not objectionable. But it doesn't actually fix the bill's four problems. Subsection 3(b) of the bill gives new sources amnesty from compliance with a new or revised air quality standard until EPA issues rules and guidance on the implementation of the air quality standard. The provision effectively creates two classes of sources. New sources would be permitted under the outdated and less protected air standard, but existing sources would be permitted under the updated, more protective standards. This amendment doesn't affect this requirement in any way. The Whitfield amendment says that States can set their own more stringent air quality standards under State law. I don't disagree with that. Section 116 of the Clean Air Act already gives the States the right to adopt more stringent air quality standards. It has been in the Clean Air Act for decades. That is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't address our concern with subsection 3(b). If my colleagues are in favor of State flexibility, they should either oppose the underlying bill entirely or support the State opt-out amendment. The Whitfield amendment does not provide them any relief from the loophole and procedural burden envisioned under the bill. I don't object to this amendment as it doesn't make the bill worse. It doesn't make it worse, but it doesn't make it better. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, even if this amendment is adopted. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank my colleague for those generous comments, and I am pleased to be here today to express why this bill should not pass. Mr. Chairman, the bill is called the Promoting New Manufacturing Act. We would all want to do that--what a nice title--but the bill does not live up to the title. The bill does not do anything to promote manufacturing, and it does not do anything to improve the permitting process for new and expanding facilities, but it does weaken air quality protections. It allows more pollution, and it threatens public health. Now, let me explain why I reached that conclusion. The Clean Air Act requires a new or an expanding source of air pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facility starts construction. These pre-construction permits ensure that a new or an expanded facility will not increase local air pollution to levels that violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are based on public health. When the EPA issues a new, more protective air quality standard to reflect the latest science, permit applicants have to meet the new standard and show their emissions will not increase the amount of pollution that will then end up harming public health. This bill, H.R. 4795, creates a loophole in this process. The bill says that, if it is a new or an expanding facility, they can apply for a permit based on the old air quality standard, which is not adequate to protect the public health, unless, they say, the EPA has been able to jump over a new procedural hurdle that they set with this legislation requiring new regulations on permitting. In effect, this bill could give new sources of pollution amnesty from new air quality standards. This amnesty provision could have serious, real-world consequences. The amnesty provision would force the States and the EPA to issue permits for facilities that pollute more than they would under current law. In fact, this bill would allow new facilities to degrade air quality to levels that are not safe to breathe. This loophole is also bad for business because, if you are not getting the reductions from new sources, you are going to have to get those reductions from existing sources. It is shifting the burden from the new sources onto existing facilities. It raises pollution control costs overall because the whole doctrine under the Clean Air Act, which has long been recognized, is that it is generally far more efficient and cost-effective to build pollution controls into a facility upfront rather than adding them later, but this bill does the opposite. When we had our hearing, Representative Dingell asked the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources from the State of Delaware whether creating this loophole in the Clean Air Act would do anything to expedite permitting at his agency. He responded with a categorical ``no.'' The California Air Resources Board argues this bill would actually slow the permitting process. It wrote: Waiting for the U.S. EPA to develop guidance will result in unnecessary delays and public health risks because permitting agencies appear to be barred from issuing permits consistent with the new, more health-protective air quality standards until the U.S. EPA provides guidance. If we really want to expedite the permitting process, we should give the EPA and the State and local agencies more resources. This bill does not add a single penny more to the EPA or to State and local permitting agencies to hire more staff to review and process these permits. That is what the agencies need. States don't need more loopholes. They don't need more lectures about so-called ``red tape.'' They need more money and more people, but instead of providing these resources, House Republicans have voted repeatedly to slash funding for environmental protection. Punching holes in the Clean Air Act won't help these cash-strapped agencies work any faster, but it will make the air dirtier. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. So what we are seeing is something that sounds good from a party that has no credibility to say that they are for more science information. What they would do is limit what EPA would be able to use to determine, based on the science, what the regulations and their other pronouncements could be. They would keep information away from EPA and keep EPA from acting. I want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I underscore that this is not pro-science policy. It seems to me it is anti-science and making it difficult for government to act to stop pollution, which can hurt people's health and destroy the atmosphere on our planet.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Science Committee, so I wasn't part of the deliberations, but when a bill is presented as being about transparency and openness and relying on science, I ask myself: ``Well, of course, why would there be any partisan difference on something like that?'' Then you start looking at different things that make you wonder if that is what this is really about. This is a bill that came out of the Science Committee, and I looked at the list of the supporters. There is not a Democrat on the list. As I understand it, the vote was on a party-line basis. Would that mean that Democrats don't believe in these things? Or is something else going on? I submit that Republicans don't have a lot of credibility when they talk about wanting more science because I have seen so many areas where Republicans have tried to ignore the science, deny the science. The best example of this irony is that when Republicans are claiming they are for sound science, they have had so many anti-science proposals on the House floor. I think even the Flat Earth Society recognizes that there is some overwhelming consensus on some things like climate change or that man is causing climate change and that it is a serious threat to our planet. Republicans undercut their statement of support for science when they have voted repeatedly to deny that climate change exists. Well, we have a Republican majority here. It is even a larger majority for the next year. They may be able to write our Nation's laws, but they can't rewrite the laws of nature. The list of anti-science votes in this body that this body has cast is embarrassing. House Republicans voted to defund the U.S. contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading international body assessing the science of climate change. They voted to bar U.S. funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative which funds U.S. efforts to understand climate change. They voted to eliminate funding for EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rules so scientists would not be able to track emissions. House-passed budgets have repeatedly slashed funding for our Nation's leading science-based agencies like NIH; the National Science Foundation; and ARPA-E, which invests in cutting-edge energy research. The Energy and Commerce Committee, despite requests that were repeatedly made to the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, they wouldn't even allow a hearing where scientists could come in and talk about the issue of climate change. Now, we have a bill where the Republicans are saying they want science, they want more transparency, they want more openness. I looked into this, and this is a fight about something quite controversial that happened some years ago at EPA, when those who were against EPA action claimed that EPA shouldn't rely on the science unless all the information were put out, including confidential information that served as the basis for some of the scientific conclusions, but the scientific conclusions were not refuted. In fact, they were reaffirmed in other studies. They are not scientifically invalid. If this bill passed, the conclusions based on the evidence which cannot be made public because it interferes with people's confidential information would not be available.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want Members to know I am going to put a statement in the Record supporting this legislation and urging all of our colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5728, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization. The House passed H.R. 4572 in July, a bill that extends the expiring satellite television law and makes targeted reforms to the video marketplace. Since that time, we have engaged in bicameral, bipartisan negotiations that produced the compromise bill before us today. First and foremost, H.R. 5728 ensures that 1.5 million satellite subscribers across the country will not lose access to broadcast content when current law expires at the end of the year. H.R. 5728 maintains the key provisions designed to address abuses in the video marketplace that received bipartisan support in the Energy and Commerce Committee. In particular, it prohibits the collusive practice of joint retransmission consent negotiations by two or more broadcasters in the same market. I want to note that the language is carefully crafted to ensure it does not become a loophole for broadcasters who are deemed ``commonly owned'' under the Joint Sales Agreement attribution rules to continue to jointly negotiate retransmission consent deals with distributors. Further, we adopt additional reforms proposed by our colleagues in the Senate Commerce Committee. For example, the FCC must re-examine its standard for determining whether parties are negotiating in ``good faith'' for retransmission consent and provide greater transparency for consumers by including retransmission consent payments in the agency's report on cable rates. Finally, H.R. 5728 reflects further compromise on two provisions that were the subject of extensive negotiations here in the House earlier this year. The bill alters a provision we included to address concerns about implementation of new FCC limits on broadcaster coordination through Joint Sales Agreements. We now provide a simple six month extension for broadcasters required to unwind those agreements under the new FCC rule. Second, the bill delays by one year the sunset of the FCC's ``integration ban,'' which is a rule intended to stimulate competition in the cable set top box market. We also added another good idea from the Senate bill by creating a working group tasked with identifying a successor solution. The well- intentioned integration ban has had the perverse effect of hindering energy efficiency in set top boxes. Removing the integration ban from the FCC's rule books does not eliminate the separable security requirement that ensures competitive access to cable companies' own decryption technology for set top boxes. But it does allow for innovation in the delivery of cable TV in ways that will increase energy efficiency. I support further efforts to promote competition in this area and know that my colleagues will be actively engaged with the working group next year. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 5728.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of science-based policies. Throughout my career, I have always welcomed expert scientific advice and relied upon facts and scientific evidence to legislate. But the bill we are considering today is not a sound science bill; it is actually an anti-science bill. It would take away the ability of decisionmakers to rely on published, peer-reviewed studies to protect our health and our planet. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am opposed to the next bill that we will consider.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act. H.R. 4 is not a new bill to be considered on the House floor. It is a compilation of bills, many of which have already been passed by Republicans on a partisan basis. Republicans claim the bill would create jobs and strengthen the economy. In reality, H.R. 4 would weaken meaningful reforms and regulations that protect American consumers, families and workers. In addition, the bill would add $574 billion to the deficit. This bill does a disservice to the American people, the future of our economy and our environment. H.R. 4 would impose numerous administrative hurdles that would degrade the regulatory process. Agencies would be required to conduct cost-benefit analyses and could be forced to adopt rules that are the least costly, not necessarily the most beneficial. Agencies would also have to calculate often unquantifiable effects of rules on small businesses, another costly and unnecessary use of time and resources. To further delay the rulemaking process, H.R. 4 would require agencies to submit rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review, post rules online for at least six months and seek approval from both the House and Senate before the rules may take effect. Requiring congressional approval on all major rules would allow members of Congress to prevent finalization of rules that have already received extensive public input. A real life example can help demonstrate the impact of H.R. 4. Congress passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2010 to improve the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to police the food supply and protect consumers from dangerous contaminants. Foods we never would have imagined to be unsafe, from spinach to peanut butter, have harmed thousands of Americans. FDA has been working hard to comply with the mandate of the new law and is in the process of finalizing a number of rules that would implement some of the key pieces of the food safety legislation. The administrative hurdles that H.R. 4 establishes would severely delay the implementation of these rules, putting Americans at risk of foodborne illnesses, despite the law's obvious merits and public support. Furthermore, H.R. 4 would undermine existing regulations and laws. The measure would limit the ability of citizens to hold agencies accountable for not adequately fulfilling their regulatory obligations. It would exempt private equity fund advisors from important disclosure requirements, jeopardizing the financial system and protections for investors and the public. The bill would threaten existing public land and environmental regulations by allowing increased logging in national forests. It would weaken the employer-sponsored insurance system and hurt American workers by increasing the definition of full-time work week under the Affordable Care Act from 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week. There is simply no evidence that the ACA has led to a shift in part-time work. In fact, since the ACA became law, we have added more than nine million private sector jobs and expanded health insurance coverage through the marketplaces to more than eight million Americans. Today, the Republican majority brings to the floor a package of bills that have already passed the House and been rejected by the Senate. H.R. 4 would inhibit the ability of federal regulatory agencies to issue necessary health, safety, environmental and financial regulations. The measure does nothing to improve the economy, create jobs or protect Americans; it does everything to threaten the progress we have already made. I oppose H.R. 4 and I urge my colleagues do the same.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 5266, the reauthorization of the National Estuary Program (NEP). The 33rd Congressional District, which I represent, includes the Santa Monica Bay, an estuary that includes some of the most iconic coastline in the nation. In 1988, the State of California and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project as a National Estuary Program under the Clean Water Act. Estuaries, protected and restored by funding from the National Estuary Program, are some of the most productive habitats on earth. Unfortunately, due to population growth across the coastline, these estuaries are increasingly under threat from pollution and environmental degradation. Luckily, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (SMBRC) is working to protect its vital resources. Through an action plan called the Bay Restoration Plan, the Commission and its partners are working to improve the environmental health of the Santa Monica Bay and its surroundings by improving water quality, restoring damaged habitats and conserving natural and marine resources. The reauthorization of the National Estuaries Program under H.R. 5266 is essential to helping safeguard the ecological and economic viability of our nation's estuaries. This legislation will direct more money to our nation's estuaries while reducing overall authorization levels by reducing administrative costs at EPA and designating money to National Estuary Programs. Since 1987, the establishment of the National Estuaries Program has allowed us to identify and help preserve 28 different watersheds. These watersheds are essential to the future of our nation's coastlines. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5266 to protect our coastal ecology for generations to come.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).