Henry Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill is 80 pages of one reckless assault after another on public health and environmental protections. It is probably the single worst anti-environment bill in the most anti- environment House of Representatives in history. The bill continues the Republican war on science and head-in-the-sand approach to climate change, which is the biggest environmental challenge of our time. This bill attempts to legislate away the scientific findings by the Environmental Protection Agency that emissions of carbon pollution endanger public health and welfare by contributing to climate change. I have news for my Republican colleagues: You can rewrite the Clean Air Act, but you can't change the laws of nature. In June, the D.C. court of appeals upheld EPA's endangerment finding in a unanimous decision led by the Reagan-appointed Chief Judge Sentelle. The court stated that ``EPA's interpretation of the governing Clean Air Act provisions is unambiguously correct.'' The court dismissed every challenge to the adequacy of the scientific record supporting the EPA's findings. Now that the courts have decisively rejected the Republican arguments against the endangerment findings, House Republicans want to change the law. But denying scientific reality is not going to change climate change. My amendment is very simple. It strikes the language in the bill that would repeal the endangerment finding. It does not fix the other egregious anti-environment provisions of the bill, but at least Congress would not be doubling down on science denial. When the Energy and Commerce Committee first produced the language in title II of the bill last year, here's what one of the world's preeminent science journals, ``Nature,'' wrote about the votes to deny the existence of climate change: It's hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted, and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress. What this amendment would do is to accept the scientific consensus, support our amendment, and restore the findings as they should be in this bill. It does not change the bill, except for the findings that, I think, are embarrassing to this institution and don't deserve to be in this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I ask for support of this amendment. Let's not have the House of Representatives take a position on a bill upholding findings that are inaccurate, go against the scientific consensus, and put our head in the sand about the whole problem of climate change. I know that many of the people that don't want to deal with climate change are going to be coming to us, asking us to bail out their farmers for the crop losses. We're going to have people coming in and asking those of us from other parts of the country to help pay for the other climate disasters. We're Americans, and we try to take care of each other, but we also owe it to this country to try to prevent the damage that we're seeing and will only increase in the years ahead if we do nothing about climate change, and certainly if we deny the very reality of the carbon emissions that are causing greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 6163, the National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2012. H.R. 6163 represents a bi-partisan effort to allow the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to establish a national pediatric research network dedicated to finding treatments and cures for pediatric diseases and conditions--especially those that are rare. The network would be comprised of up to 20 research consortia or groups of collaborating research institutions such as universities and hospitals. These consortia would be investigator-initiated and would conduct basic, clinical, behavioral, and translational research on pediatric diseases and conditions. NIH funding would be used to create the infrastructure necessary to carry out this research. Within the network, the NIH Director is instructed to ensure that an appropriate number of awards go to those consortia that focus primarily on pediatric rare diseases such as spinal muscular atrophy--or SMA--or pediatric birth defects such as Down syndrome. These kinds of diseases and conditions are rare and some of the children who suffer from them are very fragile, making it difficult for them to travel great distances to participate in clinical trials or other research. This is often the case when--not infrequently--only one institution is conducting such research. The availability of consortia--by definition, multiple cooperating institutions--should make clinical research opportunities far more accessible to these kids and their families. In turn, we would hope they would help speed up the time and effort in finding treatments and cures for these devastating diseases and conditions. In addition to the research itself, the consortia are expected to serve as training grounds for future pediatric researchers. Traditionally, pediatric research has been underfunded. This has sometimes resulted in real challenges in recruiting the talent necessary to tackle diseases and conditions that affect kids--again, especially those that are rare. Thus, H.R. 6163 places a special emphasis on pediatric research techniques with the goal of helping to ``prime the pump'' for a greater number of leading edge pediatric researchers. Taken together, the components of H.R. 6163 make for a package that would allow NIH to build on the strong body of pediatric research that it currently conducts and supports. I would encourage NIH to take full advantage of this opportunity. As we move forward with this legislation--here, and hopefully, in the Senate--I want to commend all those members of the Energy and Commerce Committee who have come together to make it happen. I especially want to the note the effort of Congresswoman Capps. She is the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill and has worked tirelessly to bring it before us today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6163.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are taking up H.R. 6118, a bipartisan, non-controversial bill that will provide the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with additional flexibility in imposing and enforcing penalties on clinical laboratories under the Public Health Service Act. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has a long history of being vigilant with respect to quality and safety standards for clinical laboratories. In fact, the Public Health Service Act standards for labs originated in this Committee when John Dingell, Ed Madigan, Ron Wyden and I sponsored the legislation in the 1980's. All laboratories in the United States must be certified and meet certain quality and safety standards. To maintain certification, laboratories must periodically perform proficiency tests, which measure the quality of a lab's work. These proficiency tests must be performed in-house--as the test is intended to measure that specific lab's quality and competency. If a lab is found to have intentionally referred a proficiency testing sample to another laboratory, the Secretary of HHS must revoke that lab's CLIA certificate for at least 1 year (thereby preventing it from billing Medicare or Medicaid for that period). In addition, the owner or operator of any lab that has had its CLIA certificate revoked is barred from owning or operating any CLIA-certified laboratory for 2 years. Current law does not allow the Secretary any flexibility in imposing these penalties for labs that improperly refer proficiency tests--even for an unintentional referral. Equally importantly, there have been a number of changes in the organization and delivery of health care since these penalties provisions were enacted. In particular--the growth of health systems that have many providers joining together to operate under the same umbrella. In the case of laboratories, one hospital system may own and operate a number of labs. If one lab is found to have a proficiency testing violation, all of the labs under the hospital's system would be barred from Medicare--even if those labs had no quality or proficiency testing issues. This is not a sensible result. This legislation would address that problem. First, H.R. 6118 ensures the statute is clear on the point that no proficiency testing sample may be referred to another laboratory even if such referral would be part of the testing lab's standard procedure for patient specimens (a point of existing law on which some providers have been confused). Second, it grants the Secretary discretion in determining whether to revoke a lab's CLIA certificate for improper referrals of PT testing samples--to account for the case of unintentional error. Finally, the bill would grant the Secretary discretion to apply alternate sanctions in lieu of the 2-year owner/operator ban if a CLIA certificate has been revoked due to an improper proficiency testing referral, correcting the problem of having to ban all labs in a health system, even if the others had no known problems. The Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act would address that issue, striking a balance to ensure quality protections remain, yet giving the Secretary the flexibility to more appropriately tailor penalties for violations of the law. I'm pleased to support this bill today.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, each of us is deeply indebted to the members of our military for their patriotism and for all they do to protect our country and its national interests. We know that our returning vets have unique skills and experiences that make them highly-qualified for jobs in the health care and other sectors. However, the unfortunate reality is that our veterans experience unemployment rates well above the national average. Congresswoman Capps and Congressman Kinzinger have introduced common- sense legislation--H.R. 4124--to advance our shared goals of getting our veterans back to work and addressing areas of shortage in health professions. Congresswoman Capps has also authored legislation--H.R. 3884, the Emergency Medic Transition Act of 2012--that similarly seeks to help armed services personnel transition from military to civilian jobs in a timely fashion. H.R. 4124 authorizes a demonstration grant program to states to support planning efforts to streamline their certification and licensure requirements for emergency medical technicians. As Congresswoman Capps has noted, I think there is a role for partnerships between public and private organizations within the States--such as area health education centers--in the implementation of this program. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4124, and I commend Congresswoman Capps and Congressman Kinzinger for their work on this legislation.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of Congress functioning at its best. As introduced, Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman Lance's legislation addresses a policy goal that resonates with many of us--making progress in our fight against pancreatic cancer. In fact, nearly 300 Members of the House--Democrats and Republicans alike--are co-sponsors of this legislation. Through the Committee process, Members and staff worked on a bipartisan basis to respond to input from the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute (NCI), pancreatic cancer advocates, and cancer researchers. I believe the end result--the bill before us today--represents a fair and balanced approach. H.R. 733 now focuses on a broader category of cancers, the so-called recalcitrant or deadliest cancers. The legislation directs the NCI to develop scientific frameworks to guide research efforts on recalcitrant cancers--defined as those cancers with 5-year relative survival rates below 50 percent. The bill requires the Director of the NCI to complete frameworks for at least 2 recalcitrant cancers that meet additional criteria set forth in the bill--having a 5-year survival rate of less than 20 percent and causing at least 30,000 estimated deaths--within 18 months of enactment. It is my expectation that NCI will begin first with pancreatic and lung cancer. But in doing so, I also expect NCI to consider applying the scientific framework model to other recalcitrant cancers. Importantly, the bill ensures there will be an opportunity for outside experts to offer their perspective as the Director of NCI works to complete each scientific framework. H.R. 733 also calls on NCI to submit each completed framework to Congress and post it on the Department of Health and Human Services' website. No doubt, many Members like myself have met with constituents and heard the heart-wrenching stories of those families who have been impacted by pancreatic cancer. The unfortunate reality is that we rarely hear from survivors of pancreatic cancer themselves since they are so few. In California alone, nearly 4,000 people will lose their lives to pancreatic cancer this year. An additional 12,000 Californians will die from lung cancer. Their families--and many others--have asked for our support in improving the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic, lung, and other recalcitrant cancers. There's no disputing that great progress has been made in our fight against cancer over the past 40 years. Consider for example the improvement we've seen in the overall five-year relative survival rate for all cancers, and the important discoveries that NCI has made through its Cancer Genome Atlas program in understanding what makes one cancer different from another. Nonetheless, there are certain cancers where we haven't seen as many gains. That's precisely why I support the approach taken in H.R. 733. I'm very proud of the work of Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, Congresswoman Eshoo, and Congressman Lance--as well as all of our staff--on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire through the Chair how many speakers there are on the other side of the aisle?

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has on the debate?

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

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to point out, as I speak under our time, that the way I heard the last speaker, he can't be accurate in his statement that we have spent more money on wind and solar than any other source of energy. When you look at the tax breaks that the oil companies have been getting for year after year after year, we spend far more money through the tax system for the oil industry than we are for wind and solar. In 2005, the Congress adopted the loan guarantee program--2005. That was when President Bush was president. And this loan guarantee program was supposed to be there to help energy projects. Most of the loan guarantees people were thinking about at that time were the nuclear energy loans to help those projects. When President Obama took office, he wanted to accomplish two goals. He wanted us to move in a different direction to level the playing field, not just put more money in the hands of the oil and coal companies, but to give an incentive for the state-of-the-art projects in the area of wind and solar and other renewable sources of energy so that we could have a more diverse portfolio of sources of energy so that we wouldn't have all of our eggs in the basket of the oil and coal industries, and especially in the area of oil where we're so dependent on other countries to give us that oil. We're so dependent on oil that we're adding to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. So, in the stimulus bill, in 2009, President Obama wanted to use this loan guarantee program and enhance it to move in a different direction in the energy area. But he also wanted to create new jobs. That was what the stimulus bill was all about, creating jobs for people right away. Let me point out that the projects being built as a result of this legislation, are state-of-the-art, groundbreaking projects that would not be built without this program. And I want to give a good example. The Ivanpah concentrated solar power facility is being completed in the California desert. It will be the largest facility of its kind in the world. When complete, it will have three, 450-foot towers that collect solar energy from tens of thousands of mirrors called heliostats. In a matter of months, this facility will begin sending clean, renewable power to the electric grid. It is an amazing achievement. The Republicans keep saying that this whole program has created just 1,100 jobs. And then they take that 1,100, and they talk about how much money has been spent, and then they say it's X number of dollars per job. But this one project puts the lie to that statement because it's employing not 1,100, but 2,100 construction workers. Don't construction worker jobs count? We need more of them. As a CEO who invested $300 million in the project put it: This project never would have happened without the Federal Government's support. There's just no private sector financing for a cutting-edge technology project. There are other solar thermal projects out there, but none of this magnitude, and this would be considered first of a kind in the financing world. Now, let's look at this jobs claim that the Republicans have been throwing around. They talk about how this is not creating jobs, but they're ignoring 13,000 construction jobs, pretending that providing a loan to a company is the same thing as just spending the money. And then we lose it forever. But, you know, these are loans. They don't take into consideration the fact that loans get paid back, and most of the money has been used for successful programs. They are working on absurd assumptions. Independent experts reviewing the loan portfolio have made it clear that DOE is likely to be repaid the vast majority of the funds it has loaned out. So I support the loan guarantee program. I don't support this bill because I don't think we ought to end it. But this bill does not end the loan guarantee program. It continues it for 30-something billion dollars--$34 billion. $34 billion. They want to continue the program because they will then have a choice, through this program, to fund those solar energy projects and other projects that already have applications. But they won't be able to consider anything else that might produce new breakthroughs, might produce more jobs, might produce the future for this country in the energy area, which is the future for our economy. So I just want people to understand: this is all a sham. The Republicans are just trying to put out propaganda using Solyndra. They've been dancing on the grave of Solyndra for so long. Enough is enough. Our country needs to move forward in this area. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have another speaker.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans have repeatedly claimed that this bill will terminate the Loan Guarantee Program. No more Solyndras, no more loan guarantees, but that's not true. Let's be clear. This bill does not terminate the Loan Guarantee Program. It doesn't phase it out, it doesn't end it, it doesn't sunset it, it leaves it in place. It allows the Department of Energy to use its existing authority to issue $34 billion in new loan guarantees. DOE could issue those loans tomorrow, they can do it next year, they can do it 20 years from now. This bill creates no end date for this program. After lambasting this Bush-era program for more than a year, House Republicans are leaving it in place to issue tens of billions of dollars more in loan guarantees, and that's a fact. Here's what the Republican bill actually does. It arbitrarily picks winners and losers by prohibiting DOE from considering any application for a loan guarantee submitted after December 31, 2011. When you say those are the only guarantees that can be considered, it creates winners, and anything else is a loser, because it can't even be considered. There are 50 projects that are eligible for loan guarantees. Everyone else, no matter how groundbreaking or promising the technology, loses. Under the Republican bill, we're still going to have a loan guarantee program issuing tens of billions of dollars of guarantees. The only question is whether the latest technologies can be considered. Under the Republican bill, no breakthrough technologies can be looked at to compete with the older technologies that submitted applications by the end of September 2011. That makes no sense. Does anyone believe that there are no new ideas out there that would be worth considering in the years to come? Of course not. Let's allow the best projects to compete for the funding. Now, one of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle said, well, it's only fair to let those applications that are pending be considered. Why is it only fair? We don't owe them any money. We don't owe them a loan guarantee. If you wanted to end the loan guarantee program, you should end the loan guarantee program. What is unfair is to say that those are the only ones that can be considered. Renewable energy is a critical part what we need to reduce our carbon pollution and prevent unchecked climate change and the disasters that come with it. Breakthroughs in renewable energy are occurring on a steady basis. These breakthroughs promise greater efficiency at lower prices, and yet this legislation walks away from technological breakthroughs in renewable energy by prohibiting DOE from even considering them. Suppose the technological breakthrough is not in renewables. Suppose the application is for a coal plant with carbon capture and storage. What a breakthrough that would be? Coal could be continued to be used without further concern about harm to the environment. Coal is ubiquitous. It's already available, and we could use it without harm. Yet, a loan guarantee for such a possible technology would not be able to be considered. Suppose it was for a next-generation nuclear plant, and they wanted to submit an application. They can't under the Republican bill. So my amendment eliminates the arbitrary provision that prevents DOE from considering any application submitted after 2011. It keeps all the other provisions of the bill, even ones I disagree with; but it would ensure the DOE can use its remaining funds to provide loan guarantees to the best, most innovative energy projects. I want to be clear. My amendment does not increase or decrease the amount of loan guarantees that can be awarded under this program. If my amendment fails, DOE will still have $34 billion to award in loan guarantees, should it choose to. If my amendment passes, it will still be the same amount of money. I urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. WAXMAN

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the dean of the House, the chairman emeritus 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 yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. We should be spending this time extending the tax credits for wind power. That would save tens of thousands of clean energy jobs. We should be spending this time developing responsible policies to reduce carbon emissions that are contributing to the record droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods that have been linked to climate change. But this bill is just more of the same: more political rhetoric, more bad policy, but no real solutions to the problems we face. We should reject this flawed legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is not serious legislation. It's a political bill. In fact, much of the bill is composed of inaccurate and misleading congressional findings. The bill repeats baseless and unproven allegations of wrongdoing that are not supported by the whole 18-month investigation of the Solyndra loan guarantee. There is no fraud. There is no wrongdoing. There is a loss of money because this was a loan guarantee for a new way to deal with solar energy, and it was not successful when the Chinese dropped the price of their solar energy panel, which meant that Solyndra could not compete successfully. In an attempt to invent a scandal, House Republicans have spent the last year and a half lambasting the whole loan guarantee program. They ignore the successes of that loan guarantee program. The successes, and you'd never know it from the Republican rhetoric, are DOE programs that are expected to support nearly 60,000 jobs and save nearly 300 million gallons of gasoline per year by supporting six power generation projects that are now complete, nine projects that are sending power to the electric grid, one of the world's largest wind farms in Oregon, one of the largest concentrated solar generation projects in California, one of the largest photovoltaic solar power plants in Arizona. So they concentrate, the Republicans do, on a failure. Now, when you have risky projects, because they are new ways to have alternative energy sources, you're not always going to have a success. That's why these projects need government loan guarantees. Now, the Republicans say, this is so terrible. We should never have had this program to start with. They're not going to allow another Solyndra. But they don't end the program. If you wanted to terminate the loan guarantee program, this bill's not for you. Despite their rhetoric, this bill does not end, phase out, or defund the loan guarantee program. Under this legislation, the Department of Energy can use its existing authority, up to $34 billion in additional loan guarantees, in the years to come without any limit. The only limit they have is that no new applicants can come in and ask for funds, only those applicants that have had their applications submitted by the end of last year. The gentleman from Kentucky said, well, that's only fair. But why is that fair? This is supposed to be a program that's going to invest in clean energy to enhance our international competitiveness and address the challenges of energy security and climate change. Instead, this bill prevents new, innovative projects from competing for loan guarantees. And, as Mr. Markey from Massachusetts pointed out, most of those that are pending now are nuclear projects, so they create a winners list of about 50 projects that would be eligible for loan guarantees. If you wanted to end the loan project, the whole loan legislation, just do it. But they don't do it. That's why Taxpayers for Common Sense opposes the bill. The Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute--all conservative groups--have raised serious concerns about this legislation. The whole point of a loan guarantee program is supposed to be to support innovative technologies, and we need to support innovative technologies or other countries will be way ahead of us in the development of these technologies. The market will not fund these technologies because they are not proven yet, and that's why we need government backing for them. This bill doesn't move us forward on clean energy in this country. We shouldn't create a list of winners and then ignore all of the other potential clean energy projects. We do not have time, Mr. Chairman, for phony political messaging bills. We have real problems to solve.