Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, because it contains a number of important advancements. I am extremely disappointed, however, that we were unable to achieve more in our effort to change U.S. policy on the treatment of detainees. H.R. 1540 contains a number of areas of progress, including a pay increase for our troops, important new protections for military personnel who are victims of sexual assault, concrete requirements for the Department of Defense to strengthen its audit-readiness, and increased cooperation with Israel on ballistic missile defense. In addition, it contains the toughest sanctions yet on the Central Bank of Iran to pressure the Iranian regime from continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And, it blunts the defense spending increases of past years with significant cuts that are consistent with the end of the war in Iraq and the winding down of our involvement in Afghanistan. When the House first considered H.R. 1540 earlier this year, I voted against it because of its misguided language on detainees. The bill's provision for military detention of American citizens was simply antithetical to American values. I joined with nearly three dozen Members of Congress in urging that the language on detainees be removed from the final version of the legislation. I commend President Obama for insisting on a number of improvements, including a prohibition on military detention of U.S. citizens and lawful residents, the removal of language that would have banned the use of civilian courts to prosecute Qaeda suspects, and the elimination of language that would have provided an expanded authorization for the use of military force. For these reasons I will vote for H.R. 1540. I will closely monitor the law's implementation, however, and press for further changes that are needed to protect our civil liberties and the rule of law, which Americans have fought to preserve at such great cost.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the Lautenberg Amendment, a lifeline for Iranian Jews, Christians, Baha'is and other religious minorities under threat of the Iranian regime. Life in Iran for Jews, Christians and Baha'is is dangerous. Each year, the State Department cites Iran as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' for its ``systematic and egregious violations of religious freedom.'' President Ahmadinejad has engaged in a campaign of virulent anti-Semitism, and according to the 2011 Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, ``Since the disputed June 12, 2009 elections, human rights and religious freedom conditions in Iran have regressed to a point not seen since the early days of the Islamic revolution.'' The regime has a history of targeting religious minorities for harassment, imprisonment or worse. The Lautenberg Amendment provides an escape route for these vulnerable individuals. First enacted in 1989, and extended to include Iran in 2003, the provision establishes a presumption of refugee eligibility for certain categories of historically religiously persecuted minorities. The Fiscal Year 2011 funding measure only authorized the program for 45 days, leaving thousands of Iranians seeking escape at great risk when it expired on June 1. Although I oppose this Fiscal Year 2012 spending bill due to its deep cuts to programs, and its riders prohibiting the use of federal funds for reproductive health services in the District of Columbia, needle exchange programs and enforcement of light bulb efficiency standards, I welcome the reinstatement of this critical provision. Our nation was founded by individuals escaping religious persecution. Their experience, and desire to practice their beliefs freely, undergirds our shared values of religious liberty and tolerance. The United States has a long and proud history of welcoming groups escaping religious discrimination--and emigrating so that they may worship freely--and the Lautenberg Amendment is an extension of this tradition. I applaud the reauthorization of this critical program.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule, particularly because it does not allow for a Democratic substitute for critical year end legislation. In a Democratic substitute we would have included a permanent repeal of the flawed physician payment formula in Medicare replacing it with a ten-year freeze. Each year members promise to look into this formula and address it--to provide certainty and stability for America's seniors in accessing their doctors. The House passed health reform bill did exactly that. Unfortunately it did not become law, but the Republicans did not even try to solve this problem. They did not offer legislation or have markups. The Republican bill punts the question for another 2 years. In a Democratic substitute we would have included the Wireless Innovation and Public Safety Broadband Act that Representatives Eshoo and I sponsored. It keeps many of the same policy goals as the Republican legislation, but it would not undermine public safety by erecting a faulty governance model for a public safety broadband network, nor would it mandate the premature return of spectrum utilized for mission critical voice communications. The substitute also would have allowed the FCC necessary discretion to preserve unlicensed spectrum uses that preserve innovation and benefit consumers as well as protect consumers from monopolies. In a Democratic substitute, we would not have included the poison pill of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline provision. In a Democratic substitute, we would not be asking modest income seniors and individuals with disabilities to foot the bill for tax relief--that's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Seniors making over $85,000 a year are already paying more for Medicare. High income earners already pay more all their lives for Medicare through the Medicare payroll tax which has no cap. The changes in the Republican bill restructure the Medicare program in problematic ways to pay for short term extensions. In a Democratic substitute, we would not be creating an additional 170,000 uninsured people by increasing costs on working class individuals through the health care tax credit and subsidies in the Affordable Care Act. In a Democratic substitute, we would not be taking the shortsighted step of reducing our commitment to public health and prevention activities. These activities help to prevent diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and obesity and can lower healthcare costs over the long run. The Democratic substitute would be a fair extension of important programs and would be paid for by the withdrawal and downsizing of troops overseas through the overseas contingency fund.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the man who's going to be the chairman of the Health Subcommittee when the public gets a chance next year to vote out the Keystone Kops overreaching Republicans who are doing it again to the American people, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. I strongly oppose this legislation as presently structured and urge its defeat. There's no question that we must extend the payroll tax breaks, which puts money in the hands of most Americans so they can spend it and get our economy moving. We must make sure that unemployed people have the insurance so that they have a lifeline so they can pay their bills while they're looking for jobs. We have to keep our promises to those under Medicare to allow physicians to be adequately reimbursed. But the price that the Republicans are imposing through this legislation is simply unacceptable. It contains dangerous poison pills, a series of riders and legislative provisions that could never pass the Senate or be signed by the President. The Republicans are trying to cram them through the back door by holding this bill hostage. Now, doesn't that sound familiar, Republicans holding things hostage? It's what they did when we had to raise the debt ceiling or default on our debts, and they held that bill hostage to try to get some of their demands. The provisions to pay for the Medicare reimbursement for doctors would cause 170,000 people who are now covered to be uninsured. We'd increase the already high out-of-pocket cost for Medicare beneficiaries, and subject a full quarter of Medicare beneficiaries to significantly higher premiums. Reducing our commitment to public health and prevention activities is a prescription for more diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and obesity. But that's what the Republicans would have us do in this bill. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has nothing to do with this legislation. It has to do with environmental concerns that the President is presently reviewing in an orderly manner. The Republicans would have the whole process short-circuited by demanding that he come to the conclusion that the Canadian pipeline owners, and maybe the Koch brothers, would like. But it would short circuit a conscientious review of what this would do throughout this country and how it would affect our environment. The spectrum provisions are flawed. While they provide for spectrum auction incentives, the deployment of a public safety broadband network, and address spectrum usage by Federal agencies, there are many shortcomings in the governance provisions of how the public safety network would work, and how the spectrum auctions would take place. There are also extraneous provisions that undercut the open Internet and limit the FCC's ability to provide competitive safeguards. And, funding levels threaten to shortchange the public safety network itself.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself another 30 seconds. This bill is filled with loopholes and riders and special interest provisions. It's a very bad process to bring this bill to the House floor. Some of the provisions that came out of our committee never had full committee consideration. So I urge Members to defeat the bill. Let's get down to doing what needs to be done. Don't hold important measures that must pass hostage. Let's work together and get a decent bill and pass it into law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, the next chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation whose purpose is to deny Iran both the ability to support terrorist organizations and to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. I want to express my strong admiration and support for Representative Howard Berman, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Without Representative Berman's forceful and steadfast leadership, this legislation to impose the most stringent sanctions yet on Iran would not have come before us. We are standing firm against Iran because of Representative Berman's ceaseless efforts to forge a bipartisan consensus to act against the grave threat to Israel and other allies that is posed by Iran and its leadership. Iran is a growing danger to peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond. Its nuclear program in and of itself is the most dangerous threat to peace in the world today. Together with its support for Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian regime, Iran is an ongoing and growing danger to the region and the world. Iran's unremitting hostility to the United States, to Israel and others requires the most forceful response. It is clear that Iran's leaders are determined to acquire a nuclear weapon. All of the independent international assessments, including from the International Atomic Energy Agency, attest to a steady progression to weaponize its uranium assets. At the same time, Iran is perfecting its medium and long-range missile capabilities. Together, these initiatives can only have one purpose: at the least, to enable Iran to exercise nuclear blackmail in pursuit of its extreme agenda. But this also means that Iran will have the Iranian people. capability to actually use a nuclear weapon, and bring a catastrophe upon us all--and upon the Iranian people. This is unacceptable. Iran's nuclear program must be stopped. Iran simply must not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon. President Obama has been exceptionally clear on Iran. Just last week, on December 8, President Obama again was emphatic in stating U.S. policy: ``. . . What I can say with respect to Iran, I think it's very important to remember, particularly given some of the political noise out there, that this administration has systematically imposed the toughest sanctions on Iraq--on Iran ever. ``When we came into office, the world was divided, Iran was unified and moving aggressively on its own agenda. Today, Iran is isolated, and the world is unified in applying the toughest sanctions that Iran has ever experienced. And it's having an impact inside of Iran. And that's as a consequence of the extraordinary work that's been done by our national security team. ``Now, Iran understands that they have a choice: They can break that isolation by acting responsibly and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that's a member of the Non- Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world. And if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, then I have said very clearly, that is contrary to the national security interests of the United States; it's contrary to the national security interests of our allies, including Israel; and we are going to work with the world community to prevent that.'' With respect to what the United States is willing to do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, President Obama said, ``No options off the table means I'm considering all options.'' The best way to avoid getting to that point is to do everything we can to impose the harshest pressure on Iran in order to make its present nuclear course unsustainable to the regime. The Iran Threat Reduction Act will put into force the strongest sanctions yet against Iran. It imposes sanctions on Iran's oil industry, including sanctions on the importation of gasoline, which Iran desperately needs. There are increased sanctions on defense products and technology. Sanctions are also imposed on the Central Bank of Iran and across the financial and banking sectors. Because Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, it will become exceedingly impossible for Iran to engage in international commerce. The best alternative to the present regime is to encourage Iranians opposed to its brutal repression to continue to work for democracy and freedom. To this end, this bill provides financial and political assistance to individuals and organizations that support democracy in Iran. In addition, the legislation specifically targets for sanctions those who are part of, or associated with, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--the Iranian regime's arm of repression who wantonly violate the human rights of the Iranian people. Taken together, these measures constitute the imposition of crippling sanctions against the Iranian government and those who do business with it. This bill delivers one message to the Iran's leaders: stop now. We cannot tolerate an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them against Israel and other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, in the Middle East. The very best strategy to stop Iran's nuclear program is to make business and commerce in Iran untenable for as long as Iran is pursuing a nuclear capability, and to target the regime's repressive elements-- the Revolutionary Guard--with massive penalties. By every indication, time--and patience--with Iran is growing shorter. This legislation is the least we can do to bring relentless pressure on Iran to change course. I support this bill and once again thank Representative Howard Berman for his courageous leadership in helping us face the most dangerous foreign policy crisis in the world today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, during the last year and a half, a series of tragic failures have made it clear that we need stronger pipeline safety laws. Pipeline failures have occurred all across the country. From California and Montana to Michigan and Pennsylvania, we've seen natural gas pipeline explosions and ruptured oil pipelines spilling oil into rivers. In July 2010, a crude oil pipeline ruptured near Marshall, Michigan. Over 800,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Talmadge Creek and then flowed into the Kalamazoo River. The river is still being cleaned up. In September 2010, a natural gas pipeline ruptured and exploded in San Bruno, California. Eight people died; many more were injured. The gas-fed inferno spread from house to house, driven by the wind. Thirty- eight homes were destroyed and 70 more were damaged. The explosion left behind a suburban street with a massive crater and burned-out vehicles. The vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board described it as ``an amazing scene of destruction.'' This past summer, an ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured in Montana, spilling crude oil into the Yellowstone River. Unfortunately, those are just a few of the major accidents we have seen during the past 18 months. This bill will update and strengthen our pipeline safety laws in the aftermath of these tragedies. In response to the Michigan spill, this bill requires pipeline operators to notify the safety agency of spills more quickly and establishes a process for leak detection standards to be issued for oil pipelines. In response to the San Bruno tragedy, this bill requires key natural gas pipelines to have their maximum safe operating pressure confirmed through records or testing. It also instructs the safety agency to require the use of automatic or remote-controlled shutoff valves so that it doesn't take an hour and a half to stop the flow of gas like it did in San Bruno. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague from California, Representative Jackie Speier, who fought for a strong response to San Bruno, and this bill has been made a better bill by her contributions. In light of the Yellowstone River spill, the bill requires the agency to review its regulations governing the safety of pipelines buried under rivers to ensure they are adequate. The bill includes a number of additional improvements to strengthen our pipeline safety laws. This is a good bipartisan bill that has the support of both industry and safety advocates. The Energy and Commerce Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have worked hard to develop a combined bill that would have broad support. I would like to thank Chairmen Upton, Mica, and Shuster, as well as Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rush, Mr. Rahall, and Ms. Brown, for their work on this legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to control the time that would be allotted to those in opposition.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Crawford amendment simply requires EPA to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture before making any determination about the health threat posed by pollution in an area, as well as the costs and benefits of taking action. I don't know that the Department of Agriculture has much to contribute in terms of the health threats; but the bill is so objectionable already, it's hard to argue that this amendment makes it discernibly worse. It's a drop in a very large bucket. For that reason, I will not oppose this amendment. We're willing to accept it, but I still am in opposition to the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the past year, Republicans have brought to the floor one bill after another to weaken the Clean Air Act and eliminate EPA authority to protect public health from dangerous air pollution. The House has passed bills to nullify EPA's rules on air pollution from incinerators, power plants, cement kilns, and industrial boilers. But the bill before us today breaks new ground. It would block EPA from taking an action that EPA has no plan to take. This bill is called the ``Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011.'' Well, that's a misleading title. EPA currently does not regulate farm dust and they have no plans to regulate farm dust. EPA Administrator Jackson told Congress that she will propose no change to the current air quality standard for coarse particles, which have been in place since the Reagan administration. This bill belongs in the False Advertising Hall of Fame. It is not really about farms at all. Its real effect is to exempt industrial mining operations and other large industries from regulation under the Clean Air Act. And it threatens to overturn the particulate pollution standards that protect families in both rural and urban communities. Section three of the bill exempts so-called ``nuisance dust'' from any regulation under the Clean Air Act. It then defines nuisance dust incredibly broadly. The definition covers both coarse particulates and deadly fine particulates. It covers particulates from earth moving-- which means industrial mining operations--and from activities typically conducted in rural areas, which include cement plants, smelters, coal processing plants, and other industrial activities that are common in rural areas. During the committee markups of this bill, the Republicans amended the definition of so-called ``nuisance dust'' three times. This shows how poorly drafted and broadly worded the definition really is. But they voted down an amendment to clarify that the bill only applies to agricultural dust and another amendment to clarify that the bill does not apply to mining activities. They even voted down an amendment to preserve EPA's authority to regulate emissions of arsenic from copper mines and smelters. One supporter of this bill is Kennecott Copper, which operates one of the largest open pit copper mines in the world. The company's mining activities are the single largest source of particulate pollution in Utah and a big reason why the 1 million residents of Salt Lake County breathe unhealthy air. This bill would exempt all particulate matter pollution from the Kennecott mine and all other mines from the entire Clean Air Act. Let's be honest: The reason industrial mining operations are pushing this bill has nothing to do with protecting family farms. The bill would also make unenforceable the national air quality standards for both fine and coarse particulate pollution. Particulate pollution causes aggravated asthma attacks, heart attacks, respiratory diseases, strokes, and premature death. Reductions in particulate pollution under the Clean Air Act account for some of the largest public health benefits produced by the act. Gutting these standards would be radical and devastating. The American people support the Clean Air Act. People want clean air. And over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has brought us dramatic air quality improvements. But House Republicans are intent on undoing these achievements. In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has voted to punch holes in the Clean Air Act. It has voted for more weather-altering carbon pollution, more toxic mercury pollution, more arsenic and lead pollution, more particulate matter pollution, more sulfur dioxide pollution, and more nitrogen oxide pollution. In fact, the House has voted 170 times to undermine our Nation's environmental laws--over 60 of those votes were to dismantle the Clean Air Act. I urge my colleagues to protect clean air and the health of all Americans and oppose H.R. 1633. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to our senior member on the committee and former chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the leading Democrat on the Energy Committee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an important member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the standard that's in place has been in place since 1987 when Reagan was President. It has not been changed. Suddenly there is a made-up fear that it's going to be changed and, therefore, we have the legislation that's before us. We hear a lot about certainty. If this bill goes through, the certainty will be that there will be no regulation pf many industries because EPA will no longer have jurisdiction. The other certainty is that a lot of people are going to get very sick from some dangerous pollutants. At this time I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The unemployment rate in this country is close to 9 percent, and we're not doing anything about that problem. The deficit is a real threat to our economy, and the Republicans nearly made us default on our debts because they wouldn't go along with a real deficit reduction bill. We are looking at sequestrations of our national budget for the military, and our Secretary of Defense says that could be a threat to the Nation. And that sequestration will take place because the Republicans wouldn't allow the so-called supercommittee to do its job. I want to read from an editorial in the Sioux Falls ArgusLeader: ``There are important issues at the Federal level right now that will have direct impact on our State--the dwindling funding for the Lewis and Clark water project and the fight to maintain our State's Medicare reimbursements through the Frontier States Provision . . . These are real issues . . . So it's disappointing to see [this] fight against a made-up problem like the potential for farm dust regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. When the EPA announced it would not pursue anything along these lines and they had no intention to do it, the Senate sponsor of this same bill declared victory and he pulled back on his companion bill for the other body. The Republicans ought to declare victory and allow us to deal with the real problems in this country, not this made-up threat that they want to help protect us from. I urge Members to vote against this bill.'' I reserve the balance of my time.