Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Thune bill. A warmer planet has less ice, higher sea levels, more water in the atmosphere, more powerful storms, more frequent floods, dryer droughts, and worse wildfires. Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy brought a powerful and tragic reminder that the combination of sea level rise and more powerful storms can be deadly, devastating and extremely costly. Hurricane Sandy was only the latest and most dramatic in a series of extreme weather events. Over the past 2 years, we've had record- breaking temperatures, the worst drought in 50 years, major floods, numerous tornadoes and thunderstorms, and vast wildfires. This is what global warming looks like, and if we continue to ignore it, it will soon look far worse. We should be doing all that we can to reduce carbon pollution and slow global warming, but the Thune bill, instead, tries to stop efforts to reduce carbon pollution. Specifically, the bill targets the European Union's requirement that airlines modestly reduce their carbon pollution. Aviation is a significant and fast-growing source of carbon pollution, and talks on an international agreement to control this pollution have languished for over a decade. So, since nothing was happening for 10 years, the European Union acted to require, for the price of only a few dollars a ticket--just a small fraction of the fee that the airlines impose on consumers just to pay for their bags going on the same airplane--that the amount of money be imposed unless the airlines can reduce the contribution to global warming. These environmental requirements are no more a violation of national sovereignty than the aviation safety and security requirements imposed overseas by the United States or the taxes on aviation imposed by other nations. Everyone, including the European Union, agrees it would be better to address this issue on aviation from a global basis rather than through regional requirements. Last week, international negotiations made progress on developing such an alternative to the EU requirements. In response, the European Union announced yesterday that it would delay the enforcement of the aviation requirements for a year in order to create a positive atmosphere and facilitate progress on global alternatives. That makes the Thune bill unnecessary. The airlines now do not have to comply with the EU requirements for at least a year and a half. The Thune bill is counterproductive. It would respond to the European Union's concession by enacting a retaliatory measure, which will undermine rather than advance progress towards an agreement. There are other serious problems with this bill. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation, if he finds it in the public interest, to bar U.S. airlines from complying with the EU requirement to control carbon pollution. It also directs the Secretary to hold the U.S. airlines harmless from the requirements. If we bar the airlines from complying, they will incur steep penalties estimated at over $20 billion by 2020. The Thune bill then says the government is going to have to hold the airlines harmless from this cost. That means that taxpayers may be on the hook for over $20 billion, although the bill also limits the use of appropriated funds. Or the hold harmless provision would force the Secretary to use existing authority to require European airlines to pay the fees to compensate the U.S. airlines. Rather than doing something constructive about global warming, we are going to ignite a trade war with the Europeans. We ought to be working with them in an international context to do something rather than punish them if they punish us and have the taxpayers pay the bill because the Europeans have waited 10 years for an international agreement and nothing has happened.

Mr. WAXMAN. Even if you oppose the EU aviation requirements, the Thune bill makes no sense. It's unnecessary and it's counterproductive, as the European Union just agreed to delay the requirements targeted by the bill. It also risks taxpayer dollars, threatens to provoke an international trade war, and jeopardizes U.S. national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and misguided bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for yielding. I certainly won't object to this unanimous consent request, but I do want to point out that we here in Washington ought to be doing our job. We have our Nation's urgent priorities. We need to increase jobs, strengthen our economy, prevent the fiscal cliff, protect Medicare from cuts, address our long-term debt. We should be fighting for the middle class, not preserving tax breaks for oil companies and millionaires. We are out of session for this campaign at the earliest time ever, and for that reason--but I will not object. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WAXMAN. During pro forma session, can the Chair entertain legislative business? Because I have a further parliamentary inquiry: If we can take up legislation to create jobs and avoid the fiscal cliff, since we're taking up other items, I would like to know whether we could do business in the House of Representatives to address the priorities in this Nation? People want jobs. People want the deficit reduced.

Mr. WAXMAN. My specific request is whether, during a pro forma session, can the Chair entertain legislative business?

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute on the national priorities we're neglecting, including middle class tax cuts, responsible deficit reduction, the Violence Against Women Act, veterans benefits, and protecting Medicare.

Mr. WAXMAN

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I oppose this amendment. It would make a terrible bill even worse. Our Nation's environmental laws are founded on cooperative federalism. This is how it works: The Federal Government sets minimum standards to assure that every American has a basic level of protection so no one is forced to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water. Then the States decide how to meet those standards, or set stronger standards if they choose. The States also implement the programs they adopt. Finally, if a State fails to act, EPA can step in and do the job itself. This approach has worked well for over 40 years. It means that there is a healthy give-and-take between the States and the Environmental Protection Agency. The States receive Federal funds, and they run their own programs. But EPA has the tools to encourage the States to do more, where necessary. Before Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and the Clean Water Act in 1972, both signed by President Nixon, it was up to the States to control pollution. The problem was that many of them didn't do it. We had rivers catch on fire, smog so thick you couldn't see nearby mountains, and a tremendous toll on public health and lives. It wasn't that States didn't want to clean up pollution, but if there are no minimum standards, States are forced into a race to the bottom. If a State wants to reduce pollution from oil refineries, the oil industry can threaten to build its new refineries in another State with looser requirements. The result is that States were afraid to require industry to clean up to the levels needed to protect the public. This amendment, like other provisions already in the bill, overthrows the principles of cooperative federalism that have guided us for 40 years. Instead, it would leave various pollution control decisions almost entirely up to the States. The proponents of this amendment claim that it is about EPA's Regional Haze Program. Every Member should understand that this amendment is not limited to regional haze. The first part of the amendment is remarkably broad. It applies to all of the criteria air pollutants regulated by the States--smog, NOX, fine particulates--and it applies in every area that is not meeting the health-based air quality standards. This amendment says that even when a State fails to act, fails to control air pollution, EPA can no longer provide a backstop. EPA must wait at least 2 years before they can fill in for the States' failures. And there's no deadline for EPA ever to act, allowing unhealthy air quality to persist indefinitely. Citizens of that State would no longer have any recourse. The second part of this amendment effectively eliminates minimum national criteria to protect air quality in our national parks. The Clean Air Act has special provisions to protect air quality in the pristine lands that the Nation has set aside for all Americans to enjoy--our national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas. After all, we go to the Grand Canyon to see the view. There's little point in protecting these lands if we allow their air and water to be polluted. This amendment targets those Clean Air Act provisions. It says that when it comes to protecting the air quality of the national parks that belong to all Americans, the State where a park is located has sole discretion to decide how much, if any, pollution control would be required. EPA would no longer be able to require a minimum level of pollution reductions, and if the State failed to act entirely, as some have done, EPA would no longer be able to step in and set pollution controls. The practical effect of this amendment would be to allow some of the oldest and dirtiest power plants in the country to continue polluting without standard pollution controls. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I urge Members to oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment is narrower than many of the provisions in this bill. Instead of providing a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card for many polluters, like most of the provisions in this bill, this amendment provides a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card for one polluter--the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona. The amendment prohibits EPA from requiring pollution controls if it would adversely impact employment at the Navajo Generating Station or at other coal plants or coal mines on tribal lands in northern Arizona. Now, if you listened to the debate on the last amendment, you might have thought this is another dispute about whether EPA or the States should set the standards; but Arizona has no authority to control air pollution on tribal lands, and the tribe has not established its own program to set the standards. That means, by barring EPA from requiring pollution controls, this amendment would have the effect of ensuring modern pollution controls are not installed on this plant. And that's a problem. The Navajo Generating Station is a huge power plant--over 2,000 megawatts. It's also old. The Navajo Generating Station began operating almost 40 years ago, and it was built without standard pollution controls. And it's dirty. This plant spews almost 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, or NOX, each year. This is a dangerous air pollutant. NOX forms small particles that penetrate deep into the lungs, causing emphysema, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases, heart attacks, and premature deaths. The Navajo Generating Station is the fifth highest emitter of NOX pollution in the United States, and this plant harms the air quality at 11 national parks and wilderness areas. These are some of our Nation's most treasured and popular national parks. Almost 12 million Americans visit these parks each year. They travel there because it's part of our natural heritage of the Nation and because it belongs to all of us--but not if this amendment passes. This amendment says that polluters' interests in continuing to pollute trumps Americans' interests in having clean air in their national parks. This amendment would remove EPA's authority to protect clean air in the national parks, so I urge my colleagues to stand up for clean air and to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the EPA is not going to shut down the power plant; but if this amendment passes, they can do nothing to get some reductions in pollution and work with the power plant to accomplish that goal. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would do more harm than good, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the past 2 years, this Republican House has amassed the most anti-environment record in the history of Congress. During this period, the Republican House has voted more than 300 times on the floor to weaken long-standing public health and environmental protections, block important environmental standards, and even halt environmental research. It's an appalling record. I remember a time when there was bipartisan support for protecting the environment. Some of our best allies were Republicans like former Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert. It would have been unthinkable then to bring a bill that eviscerates the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to the floor. But those days are apparently over. Our last order of business before the election in 2012 is this bill, H.R. 3409. This is the single worst anti-environment bill to be considered during the most anti-environment House of Representatives in history. Under the guise of protecting coal mining jobs, House Republicans have resurrected their most extreme anti-environmental bills. This new Frankenstein legislation is a sweeping attack on environmental protections, many of which had nothing to do with coal. It's an all-out assault on America's bedrock environmental protections. Since 1970, when Richard Nixon was the President of the United States, the U.S. has had a national policy that air should be safe enough for people to breathe. The Republican bill that we're considering today would overturn this policy and cut the heart out of the Clean Air Act by allowing air quality standards to be set on the basis of polluter profits rather than health. This would reverse decades of progress in cleaning up our air. The gentleman that just last spoke on the floor said it was great, he likes the fact that we have cleaner air, but enough is enough. The standards that we see being changed would no longer be based on health. The bill also nullifies EPA's rules to require power plants to finally reduce their emissions of toxic mercury, which can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in infants and children. Blocking reductions in toxic air pollution means more heart attacks, more asthma attacks, more emergency room visits, and more premature deaths. Well, we've had enough of those kinds of clean air. Why have we've got to go backwards and allow toxic pollution to do harm to so many people? But the bill doesn't stop there. It would overturn the Obama administration's historic vehicle fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards. These standards are supported by the auto industry because they provide the industry with regulatory certainty and a single, national program. The standards will boost our energy independence by saving over 2 million barrels of oil a day. They will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump over the life of a vehicle. The savings to American consumers will be equivalent to lowering gasoline prices by $1 per gallon. These standards that the Republican bill would overturn are a victory for the auto industry, consumers, and the environment. They have nothing to do with coal. But House Republicans are targeting them anyway. The legislation would prohibit EPA from taking any action to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. It codifies climate science denial by overturning EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers health and welfare. The premise of title II of this bill is that climate change is a hoax. The bill even eliminates the existing requirement that oil refineries, chemical plants, and other large polluters disclose how much carbon pollution they are releasing. The signs that climate change is already occurring are all around us. The recent wildfires, drought, and heat waves are exactly the types of extreme weather events that scientists have been predicting for years. The House Republican solution to the greatest environmental challenge of our time is to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening. And they call this bill a moderate, not extreme, one. This assault on the Nation's environmental laws will be the last order of business before the House adjourns for the election. It won't go anywhere in the Senate. It is a partisan, political bill that is distracting us from dealing with the real problems facing our Nation, like creating jobs and strengthening our economy. We should stay here, Mr. Chairman, and do some real work for a change. This political bill is the wrong direction for America. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Mr. WAXMAN. We have an additional speaker who is on his way, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New Jersey, an important member of our committee, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Frank Pallone.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, there is no war on coal. If coal is not able to compete with cheaper natural gas, that's not the government's fault. That's the market. That's the way it works. Do we blame the government for the failure of typewriter manufacturers to stay in business because they've been replaced by computers? Coal is not going to go out of business. The President said in his Statement of Administration Policy: To be clear, the administration believes that coal is and will remain an important part of our energy mix for decades to come. For that reason, since 2009, the administration has committed nearly $6 billion in advanced coal research, development and deployment and continues to work with industry on important efforts to demonstrate advanced coal technologies. Let me just tell you what the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Health Care Without Harm, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health say. They say: With such dramatic consequences for public health and enormous costs from air-pollution-related illnesses, we urge you to stand up to the pressure of big polluters and reject H.R. 3409 for what it is, a war on lungs. That has no place at the top of Congress's legislative agenda. Coal has had a pretty good deal. They've never had to carry the full cost of burning coal because they have never had to pay for the external consequences to human health and the environment. But their failure in the market is because of lower competition. I yield back the balance of my time.

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